IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Fri, 01 July 2022 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.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 1CEAFC157B52; Fri, 1 Jul 2022 08:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 kWDwCjqvEn34; Fri, 1 Jul 2022 08:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EFE6C157B32; Fri, 1 Jul 2022 08:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LZKRN1NcTz67JRZ; Fri, 1 Jul 2022 23:50:40 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Fri, 1 Jul 2022 17:54:45 +0200
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Fri, 1 Jul 2022 17:54:45 +0200
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: "wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn" <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>, 'Dhruv Dhody' <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit@ietf.org" <draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06
Thread-Index: AQHYh6jQNKSAJlnK00OiUI3WP8k0U61pKGKAgABWHPA=
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 15:54:45 +0000
Message-ID: <6092b9d7033542cf8144f77694a87a08@huawei.com>
References: <CAP7zK5Zp6CWFvBTKHK53B8krYZWgZKvswjfd+hBek=DikVWc-Q@mail.gmail.com> <003601d88d2c$9f372b60$dda58220$@chinatelecom.cn>
In-Reply-To: <003601d88d2c$9f372b60$dda58220$@chinatelecom.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.215.95]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6092b9d7033542cf8144f77694a87a08huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/NWIq_eyMUXDwanea15uXJW-q1yY>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06
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, 01 Jul 2022 15:54:53 -0000

Hi Aijun,
Thanks for the support.
Regarding your question, I think we can clarify this point in the next version. If a PCE instantiates a path on the PCC with an IFIT capability enabled, it is supposed that there are at least two nodes (e.g. starting and ending node) which support it. But if nodes on the path do not support some capabilities, it is not a big issue. Indeed, both Alternate Marking and IOAM documents specify that nodes that do not support a specific functionality will forward the packet without any changes to the data fields and they are simply not considered in the measurement.

Regards,

Giuseppe


From: wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>
Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 11:26 AM
To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <dd@dhruvdhody.com>; pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit@ietf.org
Subject: 答复: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

Hi, All:

I support its adoption.

One questions to the authors:
Is it enough that only the headend support the defined iFIT capabilities? What’s the procedures when the nodes on the LSP/SR path doesn’t support the defined iFIT capabilities?

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

发件人: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dd@dhruvdhody.com]
发送时间: 2022年6月24日 16:59
收件人: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
抄送: draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit@ietf.org<mailto:draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit@ietf.org>
主题: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit/

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 Monday 11th July 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email