IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Pce] Proposed Standard Track for "draft-ietf-pce-pceps"

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Thu, 23 June 2016 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@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 74CFA12B00E; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Xe4AS6Y4OKWn; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43293128E18; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CMM12780; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:28:13 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:28:12 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.200]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:57:58 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Proposed Standard Track for "draft-ietf-pce-pceps"
Thread-Index: AdHNWlbFitMC8eayQFuzoC999mBL9w==
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:27:58 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C8A06AC@blreml501-mbb>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.195.41.167]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C8A06ACblreml501mbb_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090204.576BF1FF.002E, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: bf8875eb6a73611cbba3b39bf9f01beb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/WEdzoWzwJ87EdkNlRYA2qgzPPZE>
Cc: "draft-ietf-pce-pceps@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pceps@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] Proposed Standard Track for "draft-ietf-pce-pceps"
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:28:21 -0000

Hi WG,

Authors had a brief discussion with the chairs about possibly moving this document from Experimental track to Proposed Standard.

The draft in its first incarnation (https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-lopez-pcp-pceps-00.txt) was standards track.
It was discussed on the KARP WG, the last time we were in Berlin.

Based on the feedback that we got at that time, the authors decided that it would be easier to get things moving if we aim for experimental, when we renamed the draft - (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lopez-pce-pceps-00).
There were some contention points at that time (mainly the use of different port for PCEPS), which we have resolved over time.

The importance of securing PCEP has increased as well, with PCE-initiation/ABNO/ PCE as central control functions.
We now have a good consensus in the WG, with some implementations out there as well.

We wanted to hear from the WG if there are any objections to moving the document to standards track.

Note that though the document was WG last-called, it is still in the hands of the WG and we can make that change before sending this document to IESG.

Regards,
Dhruv (on behalf of co-authors)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email