Re: [Teas] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Thu, 21 January 2021 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 0A5063A0DFE; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:51:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 mG_yhhj8zCgl; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (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 DF8873A0C40; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:51:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id e22so4448044iog.6; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:51:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OyIAvVvOOqDx30r5Y43eYTUbBiZDoukZ4VKYYSI9KQI=; b=o5B6RAjytRQpzUVNXHqI3cVOkXiG1xqn9QcymnuBzrn8o1syDwDabtVD5dktBNUCjr qvXB7EYt+W8CBEh04hWa6RfsjkhAWXDDVjkhUMSZRqJCOc0uYKhS6+v9Yh6PYn1Eftj2 eJgXxpdsHLsz+lUTnt4XHrYQ7E8CR8eNu50iJN5RJ0czQIT1fhTAZo9hJBSc52DcGoXl s6oLwAtKTcVxnZ/gW5YT4TXNopfho8LqJ+/Gl/dgfXc3uGMyHct8CLQeid3vpVo47MlB B57mvgAAb4LYaX9O/RaKFOo6rHlBusyBid3DSrx7sx0HdF/xmCt/iMMjL05JqI6s7UdP bGmw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OyIAvVvOOqDx30r5Y43eYTUbBiZDoukZ4VKYYSI9KQI=; b=oVRzeZQDRxEFDP69erKQuz9h3KFe4iMhgQyxgpYJkYCFHUN1mRvqSwluorqvp3Edz0 E9syXRPXk+0XqWPGWE+KGQBYTp480n475Z8EeGmRvZs6DzY3706vZAAozIMxwc9bINu2 VvDNsg1+1R0WkkdGq7Wrj5NWvXtZoCUdUdfmZzDc4dGyTNAnJo7nyfgYYarwxocDIAao gnUoG8C1uFZw5e/xa/1MWgP1ak/XQKzBo+8Bg9CW7H2+QutmZOWTEOUTXRlWsPQ69UEJ E0dADPp2t6Z6xV91ta8LoU3qsKOpeiqoA4PPr4RhucZLPlRgzn3fAQkP9c7ft1fYQBm4 OkbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53132ervKH/s2cSojG5Gbvqgy0/ZDGyzB8ThYIY8iW/TVBBbJAG6 wjQLvUFl4MPjHEOPfFFO+b/e+/v51oTQMP44gTM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz/DQRb+S8t4iudDV7KnN6tD67mnAPjjCqyIOqLy54oGGcqO26heECC33BtqhhBjYCIlwTvjkpqVwNrrfiNpW0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:138f:: with SMTP id d15mr25730ilo.303.1611240683016; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:51:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161118295166.18068.2560096863622144217@ietfa.amsl.com> <002501d6efbf$3eaa79c0$bbff6d40$@chinatelecom.cn>
In-Reply-To: <002501d6efbf$3eaa79c0$bbff6d40$@chinatelecom.cn>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 06:51:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CAM4esxS4gXXpS8qRH6ZLRtT5NORLV3gQvmfot3ZjTN3AHRNq0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008f180f05b96a34ee"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/CTP8M0-0_-YGFoFKSjN4EYh5Yt4>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:51:27 -0000

A new standard must involve some change in forwarding behavior; I guess you
mean that this draft simply combines existing pathways rather than
introducing an algorithm that it is entirely new?

I might ask this to be a bit clearer, but I certainly won't insist on
holding up the document over it, if it's clear to people knowledgable in
the field.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:33 PM Aijun Wang <wangaj3@chinatelecom.cn> wrote:

> Hi, Martin:
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> “No changes in a router's forwarding behavior” is one of main objective of
> the solution that described in this draft, not the whole of this document.
> The main reason is that we want to utilize the deployed/existing devices
> in large extent, thus focus mainly on the design/update of the control
> plane.
>
> Is there any concern from you for such considerations?
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: noreply@ietf.org <noreply@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 6:49 AM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip@ietf.org; teas-chairs@ietf.org;
> teas@ietf.org; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>et>; lberger@labn.net
> Subject: Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15:
> (with COMMENT)
>
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am a bit confused that a design objective (sec 1) is “ No changes in a
> router's forwarding behavior”. Isn’t that what this whole draft is about?
>
>
>
>
>