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

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)
Precedence: list

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?
>
>
>
>
>

[Teas] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-t… Martin Duke via Datatracker
Re: [Teas] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ie… Aijun Wang
Re: [Teas] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ie… Martin Duke
Re: [Teas] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ie… Aijun Wang