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

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Fri, 27 August 2021 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 920B83A1A92; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 22:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kKS52EFRsTu2; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 22:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A463D3A1A8B; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 22:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id y23so5092654pgi.7; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 22:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8qhxeCRHhxa4tt6M5Ow2ttjPd/T76Yv8/4nwsvjaPbk=; b=PlO4q4RjiBPzHRsLdHqqWWGJ08ZmsAhjEM5PpGfbRfScgaxvCjhgEjSv51cDlEjjpz uANNZpsR75AEvsSdpPntF1EXHtWVWXa4IJMoVhLIRwAu/tUNqAfWryhXfU79QQobFAJX fsvpBeMPIQ/IplzZVzu4snooIFDAuEv+SUZ9EBnush39Fc8I3w4NqBqjnCXYuXlHuMTE 6hPSVwIL7YNzsu+2sy1JoPI1shIxhGDD487gbr9B0CmW/ktqiW+/HI9jIfkT4m2AlhPJ sMfNEm03ijDO+c0iXfg7FJeEAyfnS6r0owaBa/0GQlGKhuBaZxv1eSef0dJgmltj6WyN syCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8qhxeCRHhxa4tt6M5Ow2ttjPd/T76Yv8/4nwsvjaPbk=; b=kECNDlqir9mxbmU4x4NFQvIMrlQVdDFgoXvZ20bc5CNKT+AATu/I/48E6YUoHVmJAk 5VP7RdwB5kqmYrzWFTwuaNlpEGzZLWD8pvBVFRakMTO77wZLjWEl4wGrEWtBmcfBWkxW TdGZPOKawSwDsfCaK4SkP6PsWtZ+JJmZMvjVHS9d+/2BnJBMtv0ky8qzqzbREjjn+sRy /2+LtCp3nu9vqbwvWV3VoKnTR69aMOm5T3qcIkN7+POPHHlMnHIIOkf8O8jj6mIMO0i3 VT8U0TOOF7qmHIzzkgf/tkKRU9TIRCm10/OF9iv4Inl2GDBIx8LIq7fZNMPDvp2cWsft lpxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532CCXdUB/VCHqUeOZi0zfm+kNT9eqUczPs3XF1yaFI2QEWAw/3s 9XdI7lE3yUW+0RBk0OwJRkliNgGThw0DHHp3rbw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy0eo2F24jXkm6OVk8YWW0hkFzfISdBNJKIZGd/I9lgmLVMayg7vb3OX+vsHqem0juL3Ywa74TbPKGAZMNSSz8=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:6143:0:b029:3c9:3117:c620 with SMTP id v64-20020a6261430000b02903c93117c620mr7412146pfb.30.1630043514248; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 22:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABNhwV1hby7ap3DWQzxB2aV+ggVCeuDL89SNfaMA6RH0XiC8sQ@mail.gmail.com> <064a01d77c04$59272510$0b756f30$@olddog.co.uk> <CABNhwV3YJW=g_MW5zz7zimB0SFGpgLa=Hd4GUfEAE_nVYyhV3g@mail.gmail.com> <048401d799bd$b3a51c50$1aef54f0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <048401d799bd$b3a51c50$1aef54f0$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 01:51:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1-q73PojFG75e3Jfpj2O+6GgHaiFwN=5Mt+2aFV+=+2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="000000000000a2c67505ca841484"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/W2xXguqwdZk_k9vI1nvifeFIClk>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 27 Aug 2021 05:52:35 -0000

Hi Adrian

Agreed.  We will make it more clear.

Many Thanks!

Gyan

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:30 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 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 <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 25 August 2021 05:44
> *To:* adrian@olddog.co.uk
> *Cc:* Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>om>; draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org;
> pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
> *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 <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 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 <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 05 July 2021 07:43
> *To:* Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>uk>; Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>om>;
> draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org; pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>rg>;
> pce@ietf.org
> *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 gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> --
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
-- 

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

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*