Re: [Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Perfect!

Thanks

Gyan
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 8:01 AM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> -22 captures it. Thanks,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 27 August 2021 06:52
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; pce-chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Adrian
>
>
>
> Agreed.  We will make it more clear.
>
>
>
> Many Thanks!
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:30 AM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, thanks, Gyan.
>
>
>
> I think you have captured it all, although some of the behaviours are
> “hidden” in assumptions in the text.
>
>
>
> That is:
>
>
>
>    - A PCEP speaker that offers this feature to its peer that does not
>    support or does not wish to support the feature will not receive indication
>    of support in the Open message, and so is expected to not use the feature.
>
>
>
>    - A PCEP speaker that receives any of the objects that are part of the
>    feature when use of the feature has not been agreed, will <do something> as
>    described in <reference>.
>
>
>
> Of course, this is “business as usual” but the reviewer of the text will
> not necessarily know this.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 25 August 2021 05:44
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; pce-chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!
>
>
>
> Hi Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
> See section 1.1 should have answers to your questions related to the
> experimental draft.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-21.html#section-1.1
>
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 2:40 PM Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Gyan,
>
>
>
> I am very much in favour of positioning this work as Experimental.
>
>
>
> It is important (as with all IETF Experiments) to capture:
>
> -          What stops this extension “escaping" in the Internet?
>
> -          What stops this experiment clashing with other work or harming
> deployed equipment?
>
> -          How will you judge the success or failure of the experiment,
> and when?
>
> -          What follow-up to the experiment do you propose?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 05 July 2021 07:43
> *To:* Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>; Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; pce-chairs <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear PCE WG,
>
>
>
> We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a quick recap
> and a summary of past discussions. Some new scenarios such as PCECC, H-PCE
> were highlighted where the PCEP session could be reused.
>
>
>
> This is an experimental I-D with the aim to progress research and
> development efforts. This work is not a replacement for any of the existing
> mechanisms. There are specific scenarios highlighted where the reuse of
> PCEP sessions for this information is deemed useful. To make progress, it
> may not be useful to rehash the beauty context between everyone's favorite
> protocol :). What would be useful would be - finding out if there is still
> interest in this experimental work by some in the WG; are there strong
> technical objections for the experiment in its limited scope etc...
>
>
>
> As a next step, it would be good to define the scope of the experiments
> and expected output especially targeting the scalability concerns as well
> as impact in other protocols and the network, etc.
>
>
>
> From the last query on this draft March 18th we received positive feedback
> from Aijun Wang with China Telecom mentioned that as a telco are interest
> in deploying in their network PCEP-LS once the Huawei implementation is
> ready.  Aijun pointed out in the thread that using this draft simplifies
> the implementation of SDN controller.  One question asked by Aijun was
> related to section 9.2.1 LS Capability TLV R=1 remote allowed meaning
> hybrid mode to provide flexibility for operators not yet using SDN
> (SDN-like) SBI.  For any operators already using PCEP as SDN (SDN-like)
> SBI, a direct PCEP session already exist between all the nodes in the
> network and the PCE which would be the PCECV SDN scenario in which case the
> R flag in the open message is set to 0.
>
>
>
> We also received positive feedback from Peter Park with telco KT regarding
> interest in PCEP-LS.
>
>
>
> We also had feedback from Bin as they have implemented PCEP and have
> interest in this experimental implementation of this work.
>
>
>
> I would like to poll the WG again for interest in progressing research and
> development efforts of this draft as experimental.
>
>
>
> As stated in the last WG poll, I would like get feedback from the WG on
> scope of experiments especially related to scalability concerns and impact
> to other protocols on the network.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Gyan (on behalf of co-authors)
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-pce-42-pcep-ls-00.pdf
>
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/
>
> ==
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*



*M 301 502-1347*