[Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-te-data-extn

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Thu, 18 March 2021 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 7346B3A1D8F; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 eNqgRFr12lVF; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42b.google.com (mail-pf1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42b]) (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 B4EEA3A1D8E; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id x26so2599516pfn.0; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=AEdwoFqM0ZKevitcFgeifkmZw5RPWFXEDQFKj03E76Q=; b=DB2KUokilPqlPL6pXeSXis2RCnYSgP83hYUQy4BknofS2IMIs9qlyNUKHCbc+q3g0W 3X0gpsKId8/9KVrvPlBkL7RQOkinosy43O+ZQkCsy+OBVEu3pnV8Ycai0sytnuHYX3qh lehNKE87RWLPcAURBG5C52wukLev7WP4bfGEM+DiBmHqrqxWvi2cXsoEkal+7zztxxiR qoh7+f2iZ8weyzs2NDLIW+xT+aVIhwpJkQkX+sL7o1T07CYBdF5cWcxAMZYPbtWs3ENc oZb/Y+wPRq0ftnjuc10ZzMldK92+kjR2jADxYxv3G09gyinKqSJZzApILFcJGGMcoRl8 j/1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=AEdwoFqM0ZKevitcFgeifkmZw5RPWFXEDQFKj03E76Q=; b=e7cKDdN1nUUdrxFHRZI9G5SBNbOug++RBxFnu5QeofBb309rfYTdj469Xq4kQW6zjs pk7CVxLjBcE4GZ+Pns4/1y7r7hEh46bFnSMH2wJQypfRoVhIuwjaq7gZGpUCRYsitQR0 AWy+D7D926l15zB15MBwymjZ8iFyT6SHLS/6wfzeONRtOu56YTbPWefsgZWehhbAw/n0 kN/4xGPbWXyZ8jGVin8M3w2C8SpJ9B5eTBAvZECsP5tls42spHCCXP0Y6L088mratXZK YZG62K6EmC7Mv95oVe/QILqhmDYYdZSrAbp7a/6QG4W/EjGt9SmPN4N47EXFg+K8goZL xaYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5308Z0SUaFdF+x7oux1Tr/ZmC/R8ekVkDhUM4N47dCgD5VFX38EC qPDbafCnrGZ+Yml8EJohz5tvQGGdQ/A7AKmT+uehGo5uub6TQQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzEgPdKR+hzZo/oQePQ7AuMNqa6Wzb3cxhmwYiEjrGxF0/uREnpJs3u8ZpKCpnzYbHIGHexsn8wyoV14Spsn+s=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:eb53:: with SMTP id b19mr5319263pgk.383.1616041907476; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 22:35:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3KWWDXApyZN4bGa4ijBFs5hf0onzfpEL4UgPTVo1EQyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: pce@ietf.org, draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d65b7a05bdc8132b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/qa2PRDU7ybIyJu1gLuHM3llRvGs>
Subject: [Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-te-data-extn
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: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 04:31:51 -0000

Dear PCE WG,

We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a quick recap and
a summary of past discussions. Some new scenarios such as PCECC, H-PCE were
highlighted where the PCEP session could be reused.

This is an experimental I-D with the aim to progress research and
development efforts. This work is not a replacement for any of the existing
mechanisms. There are specific scenarios highlighted where the reuse of
PCEP sessions for this information is deemed useful. To make progress, it
may not be useful to rehash the beauty context between everyone's favorite
protocol :). What would be useful would be - finding out if there is still
interest in this experimental work by some in the WG; are there strong
technical objections for the experiment in its limited scope etc...

As a next step, it would be good to define the scope of the experiments and
expected output especially targeting the scalability concerns as well as
impact in other protocols and the network, etc.

Thanks!
Gyan (on behalf of co-authors)

[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-pce-42-pcep-ls-00.pdf
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/
==

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*


*M 301 502-1347*