Re: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11.txt

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Fri, 30 October 2020 01:01 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 5D5DD3A08EB; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:01:14 -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 gWsbBJaCTsjn; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:01:12 -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 3E8CE3A0917; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:01:11 -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 09U112k4027164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 29 Oct 2020 21:01:07 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:01:01 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, db3546@att.com
Cc: 'Alvaro Retana' <alvaro.retana@futurewei.com>, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20201030010101.GB39170@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <160190801030.30135.3157548145763161216@ietfa.amsl.com> <025f01d69b24$a2968630$e7c39290$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <025f01d69b24$a2968630$e7c39290$@olddog.co.uk>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/FqKwekwtJ_cvjRR6iN2e8FOeJeU>
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: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 01:01:14 -0000

Hi Adrian,

It turns out that the tapes were still in the local safe awaiting transfer
to Utah.  Nonessential travel still restricted, and whatnot...

Thanks for the updates in the -11; I've change my position to No Objection.

Deborah: if I understand correctly, this one is ready to be approved.

-Ben

On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 03:34:28PM +0100, Adrian Farrel 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
>