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

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Sat, 02 July 2022 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@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 8D6A8C14CF0F; Fri, 1 Jul 2022 19:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.104 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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=unavailable 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 4qP-0VO6_zu4; Fri, 1 Jul 2022 19:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (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 86EC8C157B44; Fri, 1 Jul 2022 19:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id n15so4597608ljg.8; Fri, 01 Jul 2022 19:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oggmUhPcq4ORLs4GepPWYmS6NY6J+MHNfZJ1PaS2ksQ=; b=aAFFa75oEU0lK2K5r/aSM26jWjRbH4njegP6S7vnctOatuQoyO0oRO8arvBeXhADgx vDq/3I02IUyVX77HXT4TRO9iRbIdcdVzk5c88u0nuXGUk/Iyc0A789NbtW9N+jNeDhrJ FTkbTr4naFV0IAzCbRdOYfX9r2ciJEiUV6lZ0ivYAFzWh+4G8Ndmuzol8LxQqTMmcOzV HQUMFtU8BndfdGKKpHllICMnZx+w8CCytuP//TtwBOva0DAVNsDaDg1lZmD/BhrNdE6N Kn0SRbnAVODl9ObIlph7kNcrOotD4IKEe7x5URwwYqglJ+k7gDofDFdkWMMqgNskjDfw jYxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oggmUhPcq4ORLs4GepPWYmS6NY6J+MHNfZJ1PaS2ksQ=; b=U1fVmpaQ7krlEX2kpQLskoerM+rYAVa4LxgbV3L7OqZagSCSyFzVq+ba6fdmRmOGg5 b3YnFjOq05uqV/KIbxnKm+uYfMGc4m008nXJxCr0lf7/BeDzQoDrfsjq7A9MqHl0yqAE pOHtseFEaYurXYPTpVyLeq1gZBqzsZw32wnTQb3d8XtgXGfAWr9VmJpcubKgyR+7/WKM 2KekXufnUElEpE6tNUZkKpFW6EuPlZubKRISQaMdOOvPJWjZb0a0yaMs0gd2LqK6arNQ ioZWyHcFbd/q5U5BPi3EK2JJ+H98WOD6SCaIQ/tqiOnKxGQmUs9KlpD7FjHtmlrQ9fRJ ipjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/5vkDgsei4JsQzlCiWOi+W/LcGpFgFmOoeiyc2mJB87dXeZlb1 SM/6OGCGT3MPydUdpbRepn6J2+UwS8rkYEyvy1w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sctRCK4iAWlkeO8z0W5Iuu9WZxZ/7f8G6V5UJk0XaKB9G3xji9m0/yTGrN4LALJUZMR/2aIBEWN2bMm8EJduU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:244:b0:253:ecad:a4ee with SMTP id x4-20020a05651c024400b00253ecada4eemr9580343ljn.21.1656729939887; Fri, 01 Jul 2022 19:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP7zK5Zp6CWFvBTKHK53B8krYZWgZKvswjfd+hBek=DikVWc-Q@mail.gmail.com> <003601d88d2c$9f372b60$dda58220$@chinatelecom.cn> <6092b9d7033542cf8144f77694a87a08@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <6092b9d7033542cf8144f77694a87a08@huawei.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 19:45:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmX=P6u0ERjqhg0HsPooj4AG=bRCHArxETnm8=Ca_vg0jg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn" <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>, Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit@ietf.org" <draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008e4bdb05e2c97fb5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/UFzSivUk8QpYmMenOo5mHHjBVM4>
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: Sat, 02 Jul 2022 02:45:47 -0000

Hi Giuseppe,
I have a question about your statement:

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.

Is the expectation that a packet marked with IOAM or AltMarking will be
forwarded by a non-supporting node applies to all IETF networking
technologies, for example in an MPLS network?

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 8:55 AM Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola=
40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> 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 <dd@dhruvdhody.com>]
> *发送时间:* 2022年6月24日 16:59
> *收件人:* pce@ietf.org
> *抄送:* 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
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>