IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.

Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> Wed, 04 November 2020 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dd@dhruvdhody.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 D334A3A1422 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 10:21:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=dhruvdhody-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 de3OTmh1qrbt for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 10:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x629.google.com (mail-pl1-x629.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::629]) (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 47A8D3A1415 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 10:21:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x629.google.com with SMTP id u2so4732046pls.10 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 10:21:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dhruvdhody-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/CdxNXYR0oQ6CzTaR3qdFfRhvu2+5uf8zUHle4lqalQ=; b=otpTaA6lLEHaq5JurJlhJqYNkXWHYf/pwZwcHmcG/ZeCwaganztkUUGypfpQfmuZoO GnsxmX/q/Iv6fUz8F03qX3xlHWg8Fn5Vy52Ho5GRKouzO6PdYpW06QxY2WLQl9dbJ14A bJkcboMqCmKQgOQEt1f5PMxjY2FPyuixv7FtROIrnNQswfpZcT294SclX/VSPM7aCxH5 nfUoRhbyAic73sAY1ee/Y5GbXllO6PHn+DjBRPYhB15WNNL1x9BDZzOu2I3sD6rus4f+ oKW7Rv0W4U68hBCGb4nfmM6YH00N728gNl4AwAG1OJCKUR2FKigUqiRI3cUlcgTG55eb qUpg==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/CdxNXYR0oQ6CzTaR3qdFfRhvu2+5uf8zUHle4lqalQ=; b=Otn8JhW4Rbt/jihPAlfo33KbYt8faGiyxgcFWQigPIAX3otundIju5LC5v49JMJViM uFTRXRg2T8hQzvULl2KBJA8eSXekWCswRHcDlvt6X1cUS/ZuwUVLIOSfZQZfp3qUONUp 9Kx4ULZUhn2x16ZIhusYnpCp62vx+gQXTMxzGeNkNaAbjMKEo+JLkNDwiTWGJCu9G/MJ /hbNXioyBc/NUtJvhut44fiqb4gQ3GPEOKw2QrIHBEh0RulIeV3zkRWL7FoJa+KuLDGJ mAtpLvfsuKJTq7dewiNHotHmH/LAu/dMhO2VvG10aKiwTTMNhGwWZK183BL5gHQwUi44 StNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533oFTKkCg4fHO3VQt5v/68thkbho/Q8A9zB/g/FGyEpPf2tCZyz OZU8m4derKr2GSPveVmTeh0frghyaf8WwaAT692k2nAEz3fp7c3/
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzJIsoTEfaePJlJdi+rO5nxpdTNktSqvns0rJwFaAScN1THyjA/VzSZ+VAKNtl5/hOXSk46jhc2Cx9bWf2yS6Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8d8e:b029:d3:df0c:60a0 with SMTP id v14-20020a1709028d8eb02900d3df0c60a0mr29705567plo.35.1604514093738; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 10:21:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP7zK5Y1nZL1kfyTv3pRPFZb4+9fi+awFCC9aU1FQ+POgM-KUw@mail.gmail.com> <9E9DA2A9-AED9-44D5-8E30-4E0E38EF36FD@nokia.com> <DM5PR1901MB215072B780BD902EB5E5428BFCEF0@DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR1901MB215072B780BD902EB5E5428BFCEF0@DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 23:50:57 +0530
Message-ID: <CAP7zK5ahiBWXZHUQRz4Peuz5KwqdQ1_08+e3fRMfGY=39Th6GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
Cc: "Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <andrew.stone@nokia.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Y1TJq-sDLGUNIDKiUFk8aoUl4_Y>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
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: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 18:21:36 -0000

Hi Tarek,

There is a proposal [1] to extend the support for the P
(Processing-Rule) and I (Ignore) flag in the common object header (of
PCEP objects, originally from RFC 5440) to stateful PCEP messages. Do
check it out and let the WG know if that covers what you have in mind.

Thanks!
Dhruv

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional/


On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:44 PM Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe the issue the draft is tackling is useful and I support adoption. I also believe the idea of "enforcing" a constraint can be generalized (e.g. to other constraints). Ideally, we can consider an approach that can be extended to other constraints in future too.
>
> Regards,
> Tarek
>
> On 10/21/20, 5:14 PM, "Pce on behalf of Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <pce-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of andrew.stone@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     As co-author, I support the adoption. Document describes various use case needs, has implementations, and has been updated based on existing feedback. Would be good to have adopted to move to early IANA codepoint allocations to allow implementation to progress further, as well as further WG refinement.
>
>     Thank you
>     Andrew
>
>     On 2020-10-21, 9:41 AM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" <pce-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of dd@dhruvdhody.com> wrote:
>
>         Hi WG,
>
>         This email begins the WG adoption poll for
>         draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02.
>
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02
>
>         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.
>
>         This adoption poll will end on 9th Nov 2020 (Monday).
>
>         Thanks!
>         Dhruv & Julien
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Pce mailing list
>         Pce@ietf.org
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Pce mailing list
>     Pce@ietf.org
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email