Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoints allocation in PCEP registry

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

However it's not prime

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:42 AM
> To: Dhruv Dhody; [e-mail]; 'Ramon Casellas'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoints allocation in PCEP registry
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> 8 sounds like a good number.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff
> 
> On 6/16/16, 9:25 AM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody" <[e-mail] on behalf of
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >Hi Adrian,
> >
> >> How would you all feel about 8? (My instinct is to push for 4, but I
> >> can pre-emptively compromise :-)
> >
> >I can work with 8 :)
> >
> >Regards,
> >Dhruv
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: 15 June 2016 23:52
> >> To: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>; 'Ramon Casellas'
> >> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: RE: [Pce] Experimental Codepoint allocation in PCEP registry
> >>
> >> To Ramon's point...
> >>
> >> > We do need to reach a consensus on what range to set aside.
> >>
> >> Yes, we do. Both to satisfy ourselves and to get past the current
> >> IESG (not the one that approved the MANET registry).
> >>
> >> I think you captured the essence. There should be enough code points
> >> to run the parallel experiments that need to be run together, but not
> >> so many that experiments that don't need to be run at the same time
> >> can grab values and expect to keep them. Essentially, before running
> >> an experiment all participants should get together to agree what
> >> values to use, and then when the experiment is over they should
> >> consider the values to have no meaning (until the next and completely different
> experiment).
> >>
> >> As far as I can see, 30 messages looks like a complete orgy of experimentation!
> >> Four times more active experimentation in one experimental network
> >> than in the whole of the standardised and soon-to-be standardised history of PCEP.
> >>
> >> How would you all feel about 8? (My instinct is to push for 4, but I
> >> can pre-emptively compromise :-)
> >>
> >> Adrian
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Pce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> >> > Sent: 10 June 2016 11:03
> >> > To: Ramon Casellas; [e-mail]
> >> > Subject: Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoint allocation in PCEP
> >> > registry
> >> >
> >> > Hi Ramon,
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Pce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ramon
> >> > > Casellas
> >> > > Sent: 10 June 2016 14:42
> >> > > To: [e-mail]
> >> > > Subject: Re: [Pce] Experimental Codepoint allocation in PCEP
> >> > > registry
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Dhruv, Jeff, all
> >> > >
> >> > > Indeed. Having been involved in PCE-related experimental and
> >> > > research activities I would welcome this and could be very helpful.
> >> > > It will not solve the issues but at least it defines the ranges.
> >> > >
> >> > > I can't provide much feedback, just curious about the rationale
> >> > > to allocate a given range e.g. 224-255 > 30 messages, etc.
> >> >
> >> > [Dhruv] You hit the jackpot.... we wanted to get the feedback of
> >> > the WG about this.
> >> >
> >> > IMHO we need to strike a right balance that there are enough
> >> > codepoints set aside for multiple parallel experimentations at a
> >> > given time, and not to give
> >> up a
> >> > big chunk out for experimentation that it hinders IANA allocation.
> >> >
> >> > We currently have 9 messages set by IANA, some 4 new messages in
> >> > queue to be sent to IANA, 13/255 ... so we do not have to worry
> >> > about running out any time soon :)
> >> >
> >> > BTW I could find one instance in MANET where a similar range is
> >> > allocated -
> >> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5444#section-6.2
> >> >
> >> > We do need to reach a consensus on what range to set aside.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Dhruv
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Best regards
> >> > > Ramon
> >> > >
> >> > > On 10/06/2016 11:00, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> >> > > > Hi Dhruv,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Support, very much needed!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > Jeff
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 6/9/16, 5:09 AM, "Pce on behalf of Dhruv Dhody"
> >> > > > <[e-mail]
> >> > > on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Hi WG,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> In PCE IANA registry [http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep] we
> >> > > >> do not
> >> > > have any codepoints for experimental usage. As we work on some
> >> > > new
> >> > experiments
> >> > > with PCEP (sometimes in open source platform), it would be wise
> >> > > to use experimental codepoints to avoid any conflict. For this
> >> > > purpose we have written a small draft to carve out some
> >> > > codepoints for experimental usage for PCEP messages, objects and TLVs.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoint
> >> > > >> s-0
> >> > > >> 0
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Please provide your feedback.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > >> Dhruv & Daniel
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> -----
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Name:           draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Pce mailing list
> >> > > [e-mail]
> >> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Pce mailing list
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Pce mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce