IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

daniele.ietf@gmail.com Fri, 12 April 2024 16:34 UTC

Return-Path: <daniele.ietf@gmail.com>
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 638F1C14F706 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 cA49lPS_X6tO for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A149C14F6B8 for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56e48d0a632so1787436a12.2 for <pce@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712939670; x=1713544470; darn=ietf.org; h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject :in-reply-to:references:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=cMscGIXk5uB/i7Bc2/OSzOxEUi+4k4dUzAyFb495uCE=; b=i4bLEpyaVlMf2c1AbqZKzUZeSbNQMGn9i/VZ3UMkxY65NbxjwLQkULIH4D++93kFSk vBpltcdtrMCGsZnpqUaBOsMWCT9OCKDXlG5Fr5+UnT3wUpaRp489ZrKQiNWC51VKLsRx wRbDNETF8Esee+LK9GWjSoAlMiyiVxQQedsEOO9Wn5MXrtrHxcsXU8CrAtI524LPlQsU pvt00uAxIza8nzeciqvv/Zgr/wX6MpE5Qi6lGxGhaK18F50HpSnaSvTX1HIRb5fd51Aj HVjU/Ku1Fb3w9d3P8S6zRbH8zUdJJhy1a8FRMu2Vlg94sDo7J9YbT3Kee/Ym27aNn5MC zVVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712939670; x=1713544470; h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject :in-reply-to:references:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cMscGIXk5uB/i7Bc2/OSzOxEUi+4k4dUzAyFb495uCE=; b=GzznM09p7p8Y+zKWljCTJ6PQRP21OzLUzD3oAmcwEY3bObiRHyuTIc4deRnxvcRW/u p0LYO3+l2HWHJanmfOTYk5JPFLm5wH/LOPDsv4GrUtLnqnurxUrQ4M2697nEkPwbBd7k wCzjRrK4NUIMXy1L1dW2wZugivSgk3osYHSBKTym6+nwRh2oHNw1vPskoGlpEawzJmYj TXOzHwdOxnRYLyF55ZE5GSmEJE29qLx4inKeRCMTQmq147AYJrig9BQcrhjNzUC4JHu3 T/QxGXGDqCYk3bt9jQymJOMqMPQyGeS8RqrWSW8ihYl3mhGiIiRu70UXnnNM0xajmvn4 jd9A==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVlaOOzDNnnCm5P6fQYTkpza5BvEI3yL4NzzQCNZI2VukBiS1Y7IIKUhm2ZYlZfSWYqqUG5botw0giv/y0=
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxIidbClCmqhzyV3/rT/+Qdxm2vXle3Jk9JfkIvQphtfgCEhrIw jK7NOxmGMS701WDV+1TGn5MFxpk1HFFuIJ8x8wIcqQfs0mxYwy82
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGLzlG5+473feRi+5YLMogHCsDhHYNQ5rcAPdYgbWtmQ2b54/P0wNOykQdaXanSNNti1Lmt3w==
X-Received: by 2002:a50:d49c:0:b0:56e:5b2:2d2a with SMTP id s28-20020a50d49c000000b0056e05b22d2amr2814193edi.3.1712939669321; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CSCOWPF4382R3 ([151.16.96.237]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z21-20020a05640235d500b0056e718795f8sm1800343edc.36.2024.04.12.09.34.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: daniele.ietf@gmail.com
To: 'Adrian Farrel' <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, julien.meuric@orange.com, pce@ietf.org
References: <e16ecb4e-0787-4463-8ec7-9dc16f1f7078@orange.com> <1617115269.1181189.1712251025361@www.getmymail.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1617115269.1181189.1712251025361@www.getmymail.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 18:34:28 +0200
Message-ID: <016a01da8cf7$4a193e30$de4bba90$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_016B_01DA8D08.0DA2D180"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGhNz5EVNXkf5BFF4ARD1xyb7qEwgGIUydOscs8zGA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/LBI0dz1a5EFsvoW9_tXFO4-IL0c>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
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, 12 Apr 2024 16:34:35 -0000

Hi Julien, all,

 

Adrian got the point. It would be an interesting experiment to see. And yes, the idea of PCEP-LS started from those cases where PCEP is there and BGP is not, hence I support (as author) the adoption of the draft.

 

Cheers,
Daniele  

 

From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 7:17 PM
To: julien.meuric@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

 

Thanks, Julien. 

  

Once upon a time, I was quite skeptical about this idea, and unhappy to see it progress. But I have become used to the idea, and two things help me believe we should adopt this: 

  

1. As an Experiment, this can be tried out and we can see how well it works. If it is nonsense, no harm done. The authors' willingness to proceed as Experimental is reassuring. 

  

2. The applicability to optical networks (separate draft) is convincing because it is easier to believe that optical devices do not want to add BGP-LS to their code stack (even if it is only a couple of thpusand lines of code). 

  

So, I support adoption and commit to working with the authors to improve the draft. 

  

I think the current description of the Experiment is pretty good, but work will be needed to sort out the IANA stuff. I just posted a draft to help with Experimental Error-Types. 

  

Best, 

Adrian 

On 04/04/2024 18:18 CEST julien.meuric@orange.com <mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com>  wrote: 

  

  

Hi all, 

  

We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to 

progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense 

than an independent submission. 

As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become 

a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing 

list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case 

you're opposed. 

  

Thank you, 

  

Julien 

  

--- 

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ 

  

_______________________________________________ 

Pce mailing list 

Pce@ietf.org <mailto:Pce@ietf.org>  

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email