Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sat, 09 November 2019 23:49 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 3494F12018D for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:49:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 MI7H8DryKr1g for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (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 EC72C120025 for <pce@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 15:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xA9Nn4gJ016402; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 23:49:04 GMT
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B8222042; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 23:49:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ED2922048; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 23:49:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([84.93.96.25]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xA9Nn3hH027915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 9 Nov 2019 23:49:03 GMT
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Dhruv Dhody'" <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, <pce@ietf.org>
References: <157314240322.1916.9629098133083944496@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAB75xn7PxggeeWfrveFqBVpwGHPmoSdCbRDCuPq2xVT4jDc+xw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn7PxggeeWfrveFqBVpwGHPmoSdCbRDCuPq2xVT4jDc+xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 23:49:00 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <00b301d59758$43494850$c9dbd8f0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGwHBg+bSGd6fBQ+ZK6IO45S2l5DwI3LLDUp7y9zWA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.93.96.25
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25034.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--32.096-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--32.096-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25034.003
X-TMASE-Result: 10--32.096500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: x2HXvaraFolor4mPA3EMtnFPUrVDm6jtpvDLLlsAH/1YbPLopoBzQoGr elyM0yD6zPH6uaIPRbEsBabeOE348N4V9K8RueK0nMQdNQ64xfcOZNXmvnJaemyIID37xcHKuzz CUxoJKgb/gtFuGRR5kkmnQUOM2vLMRMp8qrwerN2VUcz8XpiS9KUB+KILVUD9Vj3J63pAR3zJH8 5qIKJAocH6JW/zN4BKDm7dEh+WD8kLfKDZOEp85tWvZ0LprH5qv5tdwacZEnpcpms3pMhT0eeyW MLRVf2LSCHaGo1HzdR8MjflxuzQK1tFsD8r+sfMLTHwnYOikQ0JGOwSq6aUKRw0HKhKjTfpn1JE Ev0fxQ+UypjBxLjvrcTYHVUDcbBKe3tLI9yjjkzjxJDUku2PNvj4/bP3ORM3XWqLHKXFAwzgxkS kEB9KYgALGA6iUaZllojz2793u8Dck6EJID+FYH2PoiXxUAcXSTyFqAhtoaYR34ro7k23nRm2jX xDuI1j5AiqRIcQpzAVQqU6HZtHS3wwxS/qCrleiJwEp8weVXxXsnWs5YyG5mblWY7py+QXD+A3v N265hetjzUaT6pNBZGTpe1iiCJqtD9qpBlNF8rAuFFGa+JUhZuTdmBzA9G/DMq3z/Y/gtW8QIu4 z6HhEH7cGd19dSFd
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/FdICpqrCiokAhDHbJ5L0FQ-Scpg>
Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.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: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 23:49:09 -0000

Hard not to be sarcastic, but I'll try.

Yes, I still support this document I wrote at the request of the chairs and
with the support of the WG to fix an error in a WG RFC and which has already
completed WG last call but now has a new name and another two weeks delay
before it can go to IETF last call.

If anyone asks why the IETF takes so long to produce RFCs, we might use this
document as a good example. I know, not the chairs' fault.

Best,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 08 November 2019 16:07
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt

Hi WG,

As instructed by our AD, I-D has been posted with the file name change
- draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/

The chairs request the WG to reaffirm that the WG supports the
publication of the I-D by Friday 22nd Nov. We request you to be vocal
to enable us to judge consensus (and justify it).

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien


On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:30 PM <internet-drafts@ietf.org>; wrote:
>
>
> 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           : Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE
Request Parameters Flags
>         Author          : Adrian Farrel
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
>         Pages           : 6
>         Date            : 2019-11-07
>
> Abstract:
>    Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
>    (PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are
>    defined in RFC 8231.  One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE
>    Request Parameters (SRP) object.  That object includes a Flags field
>    that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry
>    for tracking assigned flags.  However, RFC 8231 does not explain how
>    an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted
>    messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned,
>    unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages.
>
>    This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00
>
>
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce