[Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next steps
Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es> Sat, 20 October 2012 07:00 UTC
Return-Path: <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
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 9339921F8744 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7stzrA+YWqYR for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:00:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from villa.puc.rediris.es (unknown [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca00::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB52B21F873A for <pce@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by villa.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>) id 1TPT2K-0002RX-Co for pce@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:59:56 +0200
Received: from [192.168.0.100] (62.83.140.15.dyn.user.ono.com [62.83.140.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF2C01FC1B for <pce@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:59:53 +0200 (CEST)
X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Message-ID: <50824BE9.408@cttc.es>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:59:53 +0200
From: Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPF-Received: 4
X-Spamina-Bogosity: Unsure
Subject: [Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next steps
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:00:02 -0000
Dear PCErs, We've taken this issue off-list and discussed. A summary of our agreed upon next steps follows for WG review: 1/ - We have agreed to merge the applicability portion of the existing WG draft (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce) with Xian’s presented draft on this very same aspect. This new joint/merged draft, temporarily referred to as draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-03, will tentatively be ready for IETF86. It will be informational in nature, highlighting the benefits and use cases of a stateful PCE. While this split is by no means mandatory, it does address some comments raised during WG adoption. Selected text and wording from to current framework draft draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02 will be moved to the applicability, notably in sections 2 and 3. 2/ - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-02 is relatively mature, and a significant amount of time has been invested on it. It has been recently updated to acknowledge/reflect that PCEP (and consequently any PCEP functional extensions) needs to be extended to fully cover GMPLS networks in a way similar to how RFC5440 is extended by draft-ietf-pce-gmpls. This draft already covers most refined details such as protocol procedures & messages, LSP identifiers, LSP descriptive names, etc., while leaving technology specific aspects aside. 2.a – it is worth noting that, although draft-zhang-pce-stateful-app will surely need to follow regular draft procedures, the chairs explicitly agreed to accept the post-split framework as a working group document given the acceptance of the original stateful doc. 3/ Since one of the additional comments during the WG adoption poll (e.g., by yours truly and others) was that, in its previous form, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce did not cover GMPLS extensions and could limit its applicability in transport networks, specific “solutions” documents addressing extensions will be developed. They will be based on the framework and will refer to it. -A consequence of this is that draft "Current Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extension for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS Networks", aka draft-zhang-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-01.txt will be rewritten to follow the new apps & fwk and will define encodings e.g. at the "message level" (such as extended RBNF for a PCRpt message considering GMPLS-specific extensions). -Likewise, for RSVP-TE covering non-GMPLS cases & networks, a new draft has just been submitted and will be presented (draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te-00) -Within reasonable standard procedures, the GMPLS solutions draft can just point at the relevant sections within draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te-00 and complete where appropriate / necessary. 4/ Other stateful-PCE based applications will be identified in the future. Our suggested procedure will consist on extending the basic framework document by means of other drafts that complement it and build upon the core framework. Thank you, Ramon, on behalf of the stateful-PCErs -- Ramon Casellas, Ph.D. Research Associate - Optical Networking Area -- http://wikiona.cttc.es CTTC - Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya, PMT Ed B4 Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 - 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) - Spain Tel.: +34 93 645 29 00 -- Fax. +34 93 645 29 01
- [Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next steps Ramon Casellas
- Re: [Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next st… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next st… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next st… Ramon Casellas
- Re: [Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next st… Edward Crabbe
- Re: [Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next st… Leeyoung
- Re: [Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next st… Zhangxian (Xian)
- Re: [Pce] stateful PCE - moving forward & next st… Edward Crabbe
- [Pce] 答复: stateful PCE - moving forward & next st… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [Pce] 答复: stateful PCE - moving forward & nex… Jan Medved (jmedved)
- Re: [Pce] 答复: stateful PCE - moving forward & nex… Oscar González de Dios
- Re: [Pce] 答复: stateful PCE - moving forward & nex… Edward Crabbe
- Re: [Pce] 答复: stateful PCE - moving forward & nex… Ina Minei
- Re: [Pce] 答复: stateful PCE - moving forward & nex… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] 答复: stateful PCE - moving forward & nex… Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)