IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] Status update on <draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control>

"Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com> Sat, 25 March 2017 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70DD127011 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.onmicrosoft.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 F4SQz6KEikYI for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR03-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr50097.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.5.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A42C4126D05 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=lxcEBDy7Q6vJkWkMoKaQougOFj5TDWjnSz8mdjJGZrE=; b=VkNEL4ebi3u/niD6017HsVlHjRLZGTPaIACIu1tUF3wgUVt1md6R8Q99+BEH/xfNWQb46ljm/Wvm8IUzJSZvO2JU4sdpyqYaWHnroDFsydaxHLfHOkdSjC3k5i5RrsN9UdZITLKHN6Ojmo6RN9WSs+8Cf2YetXlML96DU1+DBFg=
Received: from AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.173.92.15) by AM5PR0701MB2548.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.173.92.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1005.2; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:24:50 +0000
Received: from AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.92.15]) by AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.92.15]) with mapi id 15.01.1005.007; Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:24:50 +0000
From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
CC: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Status update on <draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control>
Thread-Index: AdKjAAxgpaATNu2BRR+7y0nIAf0k8AAQSTEAAFDVA4AAB62yAAAKjZUAACw3AEAAB7hpAAAAclNQ
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:24:49 +0000
Message-ID: <AM5PR0701MB25471FE0AB9A3972572C8F8093310@AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <092c01d2a304$19ca7120$4d5f5360$@olddog.co.uk> <30c7bedf-3866-e824-147d-d3344c02a8dd@labn.net> <AM5PR0701MB2547C9EBEDB6492C05D46697933E0@AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <0C72C38E7EBC34499E8A9E7DD0078639098DB446@SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com> <037901d2a4cd$773eeff0$65bccfd0$@olddog.co.uk> <AM5PR0701MB2547EF7B1D8F76109E7C1D7C93310@AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <048101d2a59d$3421bb00$9c653100$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <048101d2a59d$3421bb00$9c653100$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: olddog.co.uk; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;olddog.co.uk; dmarc=none action=none header.from=nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [31.133.141.145]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0701MB2548; 7:nWMlPl3MFDt+DrZ76Wz7LoJCzwGMYuG7YQwkS2gPC8vpaTI7TdIRPVJUOSl9ib7vfmt58lBhrIlKJRCxAuq2erMJ8Tb3z/bkWx/byEEiLfE1FVuQbXUc3/X5S2WVOTiTedf/7+boSLQ4SvtMQlTmN71dMHqHMKEVTYxh8HpVNiyzKrgJyKZpR7tvH2gkBBc8c1i6omqdgqYn4JFXjCWXUT1u3pXIw4xLPOL2Abb4AEpm3cVQBJ4vd0W19ZHo8XV79BVVaOU7cma2BxfvgWk65YxRW1Uw6FB+pvQZIkzL0gGfqZI8Ky3w+mu0SDK6wL7Os1BFom8Ydd/kpiS1auIZug==
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 47d25951-071f-4627-de60-08d473bcfcf4
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(2017030254075)(48565401081); SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2548;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM5PR0701MB254896602B49F02708452A6A93310@AM5PR0701MB2548.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(131327999870524);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123558025)(6072148); SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2548; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2548;
x-forefront-prvs: 025796F161
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39840400002)(39850400002)(39450400003)(39410400002)(39860400002)(51914003)(77096006)(6436002)(6506006)(8676002)(8936002)(81166006)(5640700003)(1730700003)(53936002)(189998001)(122556002)(33656002)(4326008)(2501003)(7696004)(6916009)(2950100002)(3660700001)(38730400002)(3280700002)(102836003)(110136004)(25786009)(6116002)(3846002)(9686003)(86362001)(99286003)(76176999)(230783001)(2900100001)(2906002)(2351001)(50986999)(54356999)(229853002)(7736002)(305945005)(74316002)(5660300001)(93886004)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0701MB2548; H:AM5PR0701MB2547.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Mar 2017 20:24:49.9643 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0701MB2548
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/6OdMD8sm-wfVtNlSB5vdZovN0_Y>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Status update on <draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control>
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:24:55 -0000

Hi Adrian

> I don't agree with all the points you make, but thanks for the advice on
> designing network protocols. I guess I am learning all the time.

Which specific comments do you not agree with?

> With regard to...
> 
> > > An architecture does not typically try to constrain solutions, but I
> wouldn't
> > > think it harmful to include a note on "Guidance for Solution Developers"
> that
> > > could touch *lightly* on these points at least by pointing them out,
> > > but not necessarily directing how they are handled.
> >
> > Indeed, albeit I believe some discussion on the potential challenges
> > of PCEP extensions could also be homed in Section 4 or 6.
> >
> > > Michael ends by asking about manageability impact. I find that
> > > difficult to answer. This is a management architecture. It is all
> > > about management. So the impact is that the management of the
> network would change.
> > >
> > > I confess that Section 6 seemed light when I wrote it. But what to
> > > add? What would you like to see covered in addition?
> >
> > The impact on interoperability of existing PCEP implementations and a
> discussion
> > how to ensure this interoperability in future might fit in here, no?
> 
> Great.
> We'll wait for your text.

Regarding the interoperability issue specifically, one option would be to add to Section "4.  Protocol Implications" something like ...

  Protocol extensions could have impact on existing PCEP deployments and the interoperability between different implementations. It is anticipated that changes of the PCEP protocol or addition of information elements could require additional testing to ensure interoperability between different PCEP implementations.

Does this make sense? Or do I miss something?

Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email