Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones
"Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com> Tue, 29 November 2011 14:59 UTC
Return-Path: <prvs=5314204430=hshah@ciena.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0965921F8513 for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 06:59:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.844
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.844 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GKprjMHbitiJ for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 06:59:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.144.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D0721F84BC for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 06:59:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000419 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id pATEtTPm029794; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:59:38 -0500
Received: from mdwexght02.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-29.ciena.com [63.118.36.29]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 11d16p83jv-16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:59:38 -0500
Received: from MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com ([::1]) by MDWEXGHT02.ciena.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:59:30 -0500
From: "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com>
To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>, "david.black@emc.com" <david.black@emc.com>, "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 09:59:26 -0500
Thread-Topic: Updates to WG milestones
Thread-Index: AcyuipjiwRvUYOy8Q6e8X1q61GsfeAAHGdBA
Message-ID: <B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE388C7DE67E@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com>
References: <B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE388C7DE074@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com> <CAFA723F.1DB63%matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFA723F.1DB63%matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-6.800.1017-18548.007
x-tm-as-result: No--58.902800-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_B37E6A2CE5957F4E83C1D9845A0FFE388C7DE67EMDWEXGMB02ciena_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.5.7110, 1.0.211, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-11-29_05:2011-11-29, 2011-11-29, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1111290103
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:59:46 -0000
In my opinion, PWs could benefit from general purpose flow control. Let me circle back with my co-authors for interest in progressing this draft. Till then, would appreciate if you could leave the milestone in for now.. Thanks, himanshu From: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) [mailto:matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 6:33 AM To: Shah, Himanshu; david.black@emc.com; pwe3@ietf.org Subject: Re: Updates to WG milestones I believe that this milestone was primarily aimed at defining a general congestion framework, stating the problem and laying the foundation for any solutions. We suggested removing the milestone because the original congestion framework lost momentum a long time ago and there was also an understanding wihtt he transport area that any special congestion considerations would be called out on a case by case basis in specific PWE3 drafts. If there is interest in resurrecting this work, them I'm happy to leave the milestone in for now. Matthew On 28/11/2011 19:21, "Shah, Himanshu" <hshah@ciena.com<mailto:hshah@ciena.com>> wrote: The unsolicited LDP notifications from egress to ingress with 'adjusted' b/w info is meant to notify the ingress about the 'congestion' experience at egress based on traffic received from ingress over the PW. May be it can be clarified a little better. It is meant for 'any' traffic and not specific to client IP traffic. However, I believe eric rosen already has a draft in the area you are considering (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-pwe3-congestion-04) for PW congestion. Thanks, himanshu From: david.black@emc.com<mailto:david.black@emc.com> [mailto:david.black@emc.com] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:08 PM To: Shah, Himanshu; matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>; pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org> Cc: david.black@emc.com<mailto:david.black@emc.com> Subject: RE: Updates to WG milestones I don't see anything that looks like congestion control or cooperative behavior in the face of congestion in that draft - IMHO, it looks like it's aimed at bandwidth provisioning (committed rate + max burst rate/size). OTOH, I think at least Yaakov Stein and I are going to try take another run at producing a draft on congestion considerations (e.g., what happens when a fixed bandwidth IP pseudowire is mixed with congestion responsive IP traffic so that the two compete for limited forwarding capacity, and what should be done about it?), but we both have problems with our day jobs distracting us from IETF work, so this won't exactly be quick ;-). If this comes together, we should have at least a -00 draft for Paris, so I'd ask that the congestion considerations WG LC milestone be moved out to sometime next summer (or even September 2011). Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black@emc.com<mailto:david.black@emc.com> Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ---------------------------------------------------- From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shah, Himanshu Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 11:44 AM To: Bocci, Matthew (Matthew); pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Hi Mathew - Comment on PW congestion consideration that is proposed for 'delete' from charter. Was wondering if PW-QOS-signaling (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shah-pwe3-pw-qos-signaling-02) that proposed throttling from successor to predecessor PE (via feedback loop) is applicable to this charter?? Also, why proposed delete? No interest? p2mp difficulties? Thanks, himanshu [cid:image001.gif@01CCAE7D.93F27FF0] From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 6:58 AM To: pwe3@ietf.org<mailto:pwe3@ietf.org> Subject: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones All, We need to update the milestones that we have on the charter to reflect our current work items and the revised dates that we expect to complete them. Please find below a list of the updates we propose for the milestones that are currently not marked as 'done'. We have also added a few notes against some of the milestones. Please can you send any comments to the PWE3 list before Friday 2nd December. Regards, Matthew & Andy Done - P2MP Requirements LC Done - PW Status signalling in static/MPLS-TP Sep 2011 - Security Considerations LC **propose delete due to lack of interest Sep 2011 - Congestion Considerations **propose delete Mar 2012 - Packet PW Requirements / solution Mar 2012 - Dynamic MS-PW LC Jul 2012 - P2MP PW Signaling (root initiated) Jul 2012 - Signaling extensions for MPLS-TP OAM Jul 2012 - Static MS-PW extensions **new Jul 2012 - Typed Wildcard FEC **new Jul 2012 - Static PW status reduction **new Jul 2012 - Enhanced PW OAM Sept 2012 - Multisegment PW MIB **propose delete due to lack of interest Dec 2012 - P2MP PW Signaling (leaf initiated) New milestones:
- [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Thomas D Nadeau
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Gregory Mirsky
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones david.black
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Stewart Bryant
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Shah, Himanshu
- Re: [PWE3] Updates to WG milestones Shah, Himanshu