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