IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] IANA considerations in draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-10

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Tue, 28 June 2016 17:36 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 1619712D611; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:36:19 -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 M6w8Drj-iOai; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:36:16 -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 7A12612D5FD; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CMV22124; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:36:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.41) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:36:09 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.200]) by BLREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:05:51 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>, "draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IANA considerations in draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-10
Thread-Index: AdHRUXv3Zkvm3fEkTw6CN4sc7uljKAAEdVEg
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:35:51 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C8ACC8F@blreml501-mbb>
References: <BLUPR0201MB1908417C17AABEC1EBB02CD384220@BLUPR0201MB1908.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR0201MB1908417C17AABEC1EBB02CD384220@BLUPR0201MB1908.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.77.237]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C8ACC8Fblreml501mbb_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.5772B58D.037F, 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: 9705410e7e952f539ba2e72ad4387c1a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/bziw2hsApCI35XrFJIbKEJS9TSE>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] IANA considerations in draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-10
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: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:36:19 -0000

Hi Jon,

Done.

-11 is uploaded.

Thanks for the text and apologies for missing out on the first place.

Dhruv

From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 28 June 2016 21:06
To: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] IANA considerations in draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-10

Hi there

In section 8.3, we need to specify more details for IANA to create the requested sub-registry.  I suggest the following new text.  You'll also need to add an informative reference to RFC 5226.

8.3.  BU Object

   This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "BU Object
   Type Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Type field of the BU
   object.  New values are to be assigned by Standards Action [RFC5226].
   Each value should be tracked with the following qualities:

   o  Type

   o  Name

   o  Defining RFC

   The following values are defined in this document:

            Type     Name                           Reference
            --------------------------------------------------
            1        LBU (Link Bandwidth            [This I.D.]
                     Utilization
            2        LRBU (Link Residual            [This I.D.]
                     Bandwidth Utilization

My apologies for missing this in the shepherd's review.

Thanks
Jon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email