IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Mon, 15 April 2024 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
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 9CD9EC14F73F for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.003
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, MPART_ALT_DIFF=0.79, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31JTGBqoAbr9 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-m155101.qiye.163.com (mail-m155101.qiye.163.com [101.71.155.101]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 055A2C14F5F1 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 02:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPV6:240e:404:6d10:4514:6129:979f:b5c0:9846]) by smtp.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id B491F7E014B; Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:53:07 +0800 (CST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-63A4FFEA-19AD-4AD3-B6BD-7AF923AF5126"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:52:57 +0800
Message-Id: <02546AD4-3A23-4BAE-9961-1E26F14D7ECE@tsinghua.org.cn>
References: <016a01da8cf7$4a193e30$de4bba90$@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, julien.meuric@orange.com, pce@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <016a01da8cf7$4a193e30$de4bba90$@gmail.com>
To: daniele.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21E236)
X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUpXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZFg8aDwILHllBWSg2Ly tZV1koWUFITzdXWS1ZQUlXWQ8JGhUIEh9ZQVlDSxhLVksaQx0YTBpKSEoYT1UTARMWGhIXJBQOD1 lXWRgSC1lBWUlPSx5BT0tPQU0fSktBT05KT0FNSklCQUJMQh1BGU4YS0FCQ09NWVdZFhoPEhUdFF lBWU9LSFVKTU9JTE5VSktLVUpCS0tZBg++
X-HM-Tid: 0a8ee12cb69d03a2kunmb491f7e014b
X-HM-MType: 10
X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6Mjo6Fxw4NjMWMwkqARUCCwgW TRZPCwhVSlVKTEpISkxPTENDSEtLVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJT0seQU9LT0FNH0pLQU9OSk9BTUpJQkFCTEIdQRlOGEtBQkNPTVlXWQgBWUFDS0lCNwY+
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/y6nAu9x9M6nqA8XWESt3273GQvk>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:53:45 -0000

Support for its forwarding.

PCEP has almost all the corresponding parts of BGP to control the devices, implement and deploy the PCEP-LS can assist the simplification of SDN controller/PCE.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

On Apr 13, 2024, at 00:34, daniele.ietf@gmail.com wrote:



Hi Julien, all,

 

Adrian got the point. It would be an interesting experiment to see. And yes, the idea of PCEP-LS started from those cases where PCEP is there and BGP is not, hence I support (as author) the adoption of the draft.

 

Cheers,
Daniele 

 

From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2024 7:17 PM
To: julien.meuric@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls

 

Thanks, Julien.

 

Once upon a time, I was quite skeptical about this idea, and unhappy to see it progress. But I have become used to the idea, and two things help me believe we should adopt this:

 

1. As an Experiment, this can be tried out and we can see how well it works. If it is nonsense, no harm done. The authors' willingness to proceed as Experimental is reassuring.

 

2. The applicability to optical networks (separate draft) is convincing because it is easier to believe that optical devices do not want to add BGP-LS to their code stack (even if it is only a couple of thpusand lines of code).

 

So, I support adoption and commit to working with the authors to improve the draft.

 

I think the current description of the Experiment is pretty good, but work will be needed to sort out the IANA stuff. I just posted a draft to help with Experimental Error-Types.

 

Best,

Adrian

On 04/04/2024 18:18 CEST julien.meuric@orange.com wrote:

 

 

Hi all,

 

We have a long history around PCEP-LS. The rough consensus has been to

progress it as experimental within the PCE WG, which makes more sense

than an independent submission.

As a result, do you support draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-27 [1] to become

a PCE WG document? Please share your feedback using the PCE mailing

list, including your comments and especially your rationales in case

you're opposed.

 

Thank you,

 

Julien

 

---

 

_______________________________________________

Pce mailing list

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email