Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
chen.ran@zte.com.cn Fri, 15 December 2023 01:19 UTC
Return-Path: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
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 3755AC14CE2C; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 17:19:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TO1L4dR7GSfX; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 17:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8E60C14CEFA; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 17:19:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4Srrw54bjHz8XrRD; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:19:01 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app04.zte.com.cn ([10.40.12.64]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3BF1ImUb078831; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:18:48 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:18:49 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:18:49 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af9657ba979176-63c53
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202312150918498689763@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB4122495973E7BB43AD7C2B2AD08CA@DM6PR11MB4122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: CAP7zK5aUnRZFSVdAbu8hyNda51_oWHNfw7dZQDoc7YE9Nq_eqw@mail.gmail.com, 202312141754470264190@zte.com.cn, DM6PR11MB4122495973E7BB43AD7C2B2AD08CA@DM6PR11MB4122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: ssidor@cisco.com
Cc: dd@dhruvdhody.com, pce@ietf.org, draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 3BF1ImUb078831
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 657BA985.002/4Srrw54bjHz8XrRD
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/GhyJzLAYLFaxElhqytGn9p4SPuE>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 15 Dec 2023 01:19:10 -0000
Hi Samuel, Thanks a lot for your updates. Agree with all changes. Best Regards, Ran Original From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <ssidor@cisco.com> To: 陈然00080434; Cc: dd@dhruvdhody.com <dd@dhruvdhody.com>;pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>;draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org <draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年12月14日 23:33 Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05 Hi Ran, Adding updated version of the draft. I can submit tomorrow if there are no other comments (there is also discussion with Quan about path setup types supported in that draft, but there is no conclusion yet, so that change is not included yet). Regards, Samuel From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn <chen.ran@zte.com.cn> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 10:55 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor@cisco.com> Cc: dd@dhruvdhody.com; pce@ietf.org; draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05 Hi Samuel, Thanks a lot for your responses. It looks good. Best Regards, Ran Original From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <ssidor@cisco.com> To: 陈然00080434; Cc: dd@dhruvdhody.com <dd@dhruvdhody.com>;pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>;draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org <draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年12月14日 16:51 Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05 Hi Ran, Thanks for your comments. Correct, we are just introducing new flag in existing TLV. Original title seems to be aligned with other drafts introducing new flags in that TLV, e.g.: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10#name-the-lsp-extended-flag-tlv but I can still rename it to follow your suggestion and it seems to be more accurate (“New Flag in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAGS TLV”). For “Type” and “Length” fields – those are based on older draft version of RFC9357 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07 ). The plan was to introduce TLV format after assigning IANA codepoint for new flag allocated and as part of TLV format, we are usually describing content of individual fields in that TLV (including type and length). I can drop them for now, since codepoints were not allocated and TLV format is not included. For “E-flag” – I agree, I can drop it as it does not make sense to list all flags already allocated in that TLV. Originally we mentioned that draft only to explicitly indicate that there are other drafts, which are trying to allocate fields in that TLV. Regards, Samuel From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn <chen.ran@zte.com.cn> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:59 AM To: dd@dhruvdhody.com; pce@ietf.org; draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05 Hi WG I surport the adoption of this draft, it is very useful. but I have a few minor (non-blocking) comments: 3.1. LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV The LSP object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231], and the new extended flags TLV is defined in [RFC9357]. This draft reuse the new extended flags TLV is defined in [RFC9357], and only defines a new flag,right? If so, it is recommended that the title be changed to "New Flag in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAGS TLV" which is more appropriate. I am confused when I see the description below in the draft: In addition, Not only [I-D.peng-pce-entropy-label-position] has defined the E-flag, IANA has already assigned multiple LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Flag Field , see link: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-extended-flag-tlv-flags. It is recommended to delete the description of E-flag. Best Regards, Ran Original From: DhruvDhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> To: pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>; Cc: draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org <draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年12月01日 18:33 Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/ Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. Please respond by Friday 15th Dec 2023. Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks! Dhruv & Julien
- [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-styl… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Rokui, Reza
- Re: [Pce] [E] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circ… Jalil, Luay
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Christian Schmutzer (cschmutz)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… xiong.quan
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… xiong.quan
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… chen.ran
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… chen.ran
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… xiong.quan
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… chen.ran
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… xiong.quan
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Andrew Stone (Nokia)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… xiong.quan
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Boris Khasanov
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)