Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec

Khasanov Boris <> Fri, 18 October 2019 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A47412000F for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1NicmxRmfsli for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1616512085D for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 08:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 28587800075230CDD51B; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:27:20 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:27:17 +0100
From: Khasanov Boris <>
To: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec
Thread-Index: AQHVgo68dePH6CGLQkq0wxUOPbkk06dghjtQ
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:27:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 15:27:24 -0000

Hi Dhruv, Julien and all,
I read this document. I think it is logical evolution of PCE and PCEP functionality  towards more precise binding of traffic flows to LSPs.
I like the idea that FS capability should be advertised in 2 ways via IGP and PCEP OPEN message, that we can revoke flows from tunnel by means of R bit in  FS object.
I think this draft is already mature:i.e. it has descriptions of  different cases (VPN identification, Overlapping Flows, Modifying Flows specifications etc.) and ready for publication.


-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 3:55 PM
Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec

Hi all,

In our WGLC queue, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec has been stable for a while. This message starts a 2-week WG last call on this I-D. Please review the document and share your feedback using the PCE mailing list by Monday October, 28.

You will note that the I-D includes an implementation section. If you have an implementation, you may also contact the chairs privately.


Dhruv & Julien


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

Pce mailing list