Re: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11.txt
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 07 October 2020 21:45 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB0A3A141B; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OLYTXxjq2RSP; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C54B83A1418; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 097LjfpW025336 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:45:44 -0400
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 14:45:41 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: Alvaro Retana <alvaro.retana@futurewei.com>, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec.all@ietf.org, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20201007214541.GQ89563@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <160190801030.30135.3157548145763161216@ietfa.amsl.com> <025f01d69b24$a2968630$e7c39290$@olddog.co.uk> <CAMMESsxqvJF4-aTkNVWBB1S_GS0fXUmiKn9CWkk-TJdFR_zNBw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxqvJF4-aTkNVWBB1S_GS0fXUmiKn9CWkk-TJdFR_zNBw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/FOk3tTP9ptRarnN60Uvxm6xZiFQ>
Subject: Re: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11.txt
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 21:45:51 -0000
Sadly it will probably be a bit of a wait before I can do the same -- I've got a few other documents in front of this on my todo list; might be a week or two. (Reminders and/or requests to reprioritize are, of course, welcome.) -Ben On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 11:31:52PM +0200, Alvaro Retana wrote: > Hi Adrian! > > I looked at the diffs and I’m happy with the changes. I’m clearing. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. > > On October 5, 2020 at 10:35:22 AM, Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) > wrote: > > Alvaro and Ben, > > Very sorry for delaying this progress so much and possibly causing your > cache not only to be flushed, but the archive tapes sent to the fire-vault > in Utah. > > The last issue you had remaining was that 5575bis has removed the > possibility of multiple Flow Specification components of the same type > being > present in one flow specification. We have aligned with this with two > changes: > - Added text to Section 7 saying: > As described in [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis] > where it says "A given component type MAY (exactly once) be present > in the Flow Specification," a Flow Filter TLV MUST NOT contain more > than one Flow Specification TLV of the same type: an implementation > that receives a PCEP message with a Flow Filter TLV that contains more > than one Flow Specification TLV of the same type MUST respond with a > PCErr message with error-type TBD8 (FlowSpec Error), error-value 2 > (Malformed FlowSpec) and MUST NOT install the Flow Specification. > - Section 8.4 has been rewritten to mainly say "use separate Flow > Specification Objects for separate flow specifications" > > This -11 revision picks up all other outstanding comments and nits. > > Best, > Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From: I-D-Announce <i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of > internet-drafts@ietf.org > Sent: 05 October 2020 15:27 > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: pce@ietf.org > Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. > > Title : PCEP Extension for Flow Specification > Authors : Dhruv Dhody > Adrian Farrel > Zhenbin Li > Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11.txt > Pages : 37 > Date : 2020-10-05 > > Abstract: > The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a functional component capable > of selecting paths through a traffic engineering network. These > paths may be supplied in response to requests for computation, or may > be unsolicited requests issued by the PCE to network elements. Both > approaches use the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to convey the > details of the computed path. > > Traffic flows may be categorized and described using "Flow > Specifications". RFC XXXX defines the Flow Specification and > describes how Flow Specification Components are used to describe > traffic flows. RFC XXXX also defines how Flow Specifications may be > distributed in BGP to allow specific traffic flows to be associated > with routes. > > This document specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to support > dissemination of Flow Specifications. This allows a PCE to indicate > what traffic should be placed on each path that it is aware of. > > The extensions defined in this document include the creation, update, > and withdrawal of Flow Specifications via PCEP, and can be applied to > tunnels initiated by the PCE or to tunnels where control is delegated > to the PCE by the PCC. Furthermore, a PCC requesting a new path can > include Flow Specifications in the request to indicate the purpose of > the tunnel allowing the PCE to factor this into the path computation. > > RFC Editor Note: Please replace XXXX in the Abstract with the RFC > number assigned to draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis when it is published. > Please remove this note. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
- [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11… internet-drafts
- [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspe… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flo… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flo… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flo… Benjamin Kaduk