IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pceps-07 available

Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com> Tue, 02 February 2016 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6D21ACD78 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 07:21:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, GB_ABOUTYOU=0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 H4Iwircu-k3r for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 07:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0108.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.108]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 922CA1ACD27 for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 07:21:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=metaswitch.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-metaswitch-com; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=CigXAChAloJlYW41yNhlXSL5uySs90FmXo6nirLfyGY=; b=LDKvzVTQcGAP8jHbboN+6NKz9UcUHNpu2wo6s6J3bDKatCsnm7uxXi6D7J/9WN2WJiBM2V/hHt1JOf9IFC2GchlgSEYSsDiOgh3OYcitlMRnxh8P/bQCajtxuSkDwO/TjK4VnzfQUNU3AKku6Jk/4mFPAQ1wqv97BZNpEvMSFnc=
Received: from BLUPR0201MB1908.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.162.239.154) by BLUPR0201MB1905.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (10.162.239.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.396.15; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:21:54 +0000
Received: from BLUPR0201MB1908.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.239.154]) by BLUPR0201MB1908.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.239.154]) with mapi id 15.01.0396.020; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 15:21:54 +0000
From: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>
To: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pceps-07 available
Thread-Index: AQHRVJV31F5hQc/AikyfMWjcS1RF4Z8Y7vtA
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 15:21:53 +0000
Message-ID: <BLUPR0201MB19089FE43EF57C31D4125C4284DF0@BLUPR0201MB1908.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <06EC97F2-E307-4AB9-AF08-ABFAAAE20B42@telefonica.com> <56A15221.1090808@hq.sk>
In-Reply-To: <56A15221.1090808@hq.sk>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: hq.sk; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;hq.sk; dmarc=none action=none header.from=metaswitch.com;
x-originating-ip: [86.178.148.140]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR0201MB1905; 5:0JaWipvspg7+SQdCefYqSYGYh4CtA7mqfUisk0ddKpPl5zJKsRCIaeco4Vw3Zhn+dF0lCsip5E8/dNwTR3y8dTTA3Ithc1JlwNb8gAdN938M8LcM8gQLPtnmyUYRNUEcuM8B/NZX/sqDvR83g0eNLQ==; 24:A/DrP9tofZrRruw8GWIEiudOTGycGwJDnsvK/R4LxRJJ6DtwOH9Tv5X2ikUBAV2z5XxSUvFMKNq/uij2jeoNdr0mAiauAb/YTlsbb156VbI=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR0201MB1905;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ec776424-c43a-4d14-a198-08d32be494e8
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR0201MB1905968389EAF83AD2045CBA84DF0@BLUPR0201MB1905.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:BLUPR0201MB1905; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR0201MB1905;
x-forefront-prvs: 084080FC15
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(24454002)(164054003)(377424004)(10400500002)(92566002)(6116002)(66066001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(5008740100001)(230783001)(19300405004)(5002640100001)(3846002)(106116001)(102836003)(5003600100002)(110136002)(3470700001)(50986999)(5001960100002)(3660700001)(11100500001)(790700001)(74316001)(76176999)(19625215002)(586003)(122556002)(76576001)(3280700002)(189998001)(19617315012)(16236675004)(33656002)(54356999)(86362001)(4326007)(1220700001)(99286002)(2900100001)(2950100001)(1096002)(2906002)(5004730100002)(15975445007)(40100003)(87936001)(77096005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0201MB1905; H:BLUPR0201MB1908.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BLUPR0201MB19089FE43EF57C31D4125C4284DF0BLUPR0201MB1908_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: metaswitch.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Feb 2016 15:21:53.8933 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9d9e56eb-f613-4ddb-b27b-bfcdf14b2cdb
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0201MB1905
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Jg2f8AGa9ZpVZup13YWzTHwkUD8>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pceps-07 available
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 15:21:58 -0000

Hi Robert

(I'm answering as WG chair.)

Sorry for the slow reply.  I would expect the progress of draft-ietf-pce-pceps through to RFC to be reasonably fast, so I'm not sure early code point allocation should be needed.  The main risk would be a conflict with the stateful PCE drafts, should the new message in the PCEPS draft be allocated a clashing code point with the values that the stateful drafts have "recommended" for their messages.

I think it is possible that PCEPS will leap-frog stateful PCE on the way to RFC, so I think the best way to proceed is to obtain an early allocation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce and draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp.  To do this we would only require help from the stateful draft authors (e.g. you) to answer any questions that IANA has about your text (which would happen sooner or later anyway :-).  Would you like us to start an early allocation for these drafts?

Best regards
Jon


From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert Varga
Sent: 21 January 2016 21:48
To: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pceps-07 available


On 2016-01-21 15:07, DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA wrote:
Hi,

We have just uploaded a new version of draft-ietf-pce-pceps (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps/)

We believe this new version addresses all the comments received from the SECDIR review after the last call period, and other pending ones provided by Tom while that SECDIR review was taking place. As far as the authors can say, the document is ready to progress.


Hello,

would it make sense to request an early codepoint allocation for use in implementations?

Thanks,
Robert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email