From nobody Thu Aug 27 08:49:13 2020 Return-Path: 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 ECD413A0F00; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:49:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, 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 J2wPse38_w53; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (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 2D5333A0F7F; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id b3so3692268qtg.13; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:49:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=jTkQPMC22cw3sAR+zbhfohnRG3uLk1nW5Sh5lcc3Sfw=; b=h1R1VmQJ1KgR6PR1t3rtdUdlew41A1k8G5XgrmPFGYT78h8n6yYi8GJSuH+rGhgqMQ apFP6+g/8wirVgTaOKMoWrliRnCPiTayuJkJ2474C9D0XANdeLcchnkQwTR+ffKeM8N9 GpgB7GE9Pu0HBanmojM/GAJd1OetZRE0JqWrwekg9b/LyEdLM08AI9LWb8sGuCebExIY Bg2Ao8w+LdUGd2h5ckvvUViIlxlblbFsRIr3N8xleBpfJseU7vfW0rZAwBtRuVh92kNr whHD5Ynytle9ZuLekxA8nOrwygd19s8CSZvEImZ1ND4zHHOJuxoXFSaT3Tmqp18epaJa IEnA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=jTkQPMC22cw3sAR+zbhfohnRG3uLk1nW5Sh5lcc3Sfw=; b=K/oOgH7ejTpTKygmN8jw3YtoMvYvhrJe92ib4/zQQ76ZAcYq9TdA37jFX3Y4H8Q4q0 POpzhtUJmOSzE+/oZZuhrKMRZSmylID1cChiU5XvPLhoKthk/StXObsKP68M9jRIsEy1 O2omdlKUVvmUGmcmbCcKrlNoJQVbusWLSc4xqm9ck/NzgXdBg8Hiv13vNsQrHl1YySeN DKAAG5tIA+ueSICU2V1GYFIZwLeaHsP5ZeWcaJLmzeZ1NV2uSU2SksKnEMAXeqhazPX8 dkv64P+gUXe6D4g9fENbeXIKa4c22a1GhvSM4iZ/jL9sxkevd/uq4Ej7aZoeTU5Bcbur /ieQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530a7GTbiVQxS0coNpSWXrDnnFoUsgAOcyhyC+VZ/TDYAav1Aqvy u1I9dblu92J1ryyK58VWzmc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxKHtsZAKfJFw+hrl+XUsSBSomlNRI9XSWVceSLeRX57xLxW2nlgk9XL3FS/jKXdRrR7QzFsg== X-Received: by 2002:aed:35f0:: with SMTP id d45mr10462431qte.184.1598543349232; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:85:4680:3329:944a:5c1b:1c90:bc44? ([2601:85:4680:3329:944a:5c1b:1c90:bc44]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u7sm2131539qkm.20.2020.08.27.08.49.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) From: Eric Gray In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 11:49:07 -0400 Cc: Vishnu Pavan Beeram , TEAS WG Chairs , TEAS WG Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <24DA3140-93D5-4DD9-A90A-D039809497B9@gmail.com> References: To: Dhruv Dhody X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-peru-teas-actn-poi-applicability X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:49:12 -0000 Yes/support > On Aug 26, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > Hi Authors, WG, > > Yes/support for WG adoption! > > I see value in these applicability documents. The > draft-li-teas-hierarchy-ip-controllers does a similar job but for just > IP controllers. > > Will the authors consider adding a section on PCE/PCEP? There is a > rich history of using PCE/PCEP for inter-layer path computation and > RFC 8637 briefly covers it. If needed I can help contribute text. > > I agree with the editor's note in section 5 and work is needed to get > better integration. I also wonder what needs to be kept in the scope > of this I-D (as a lot of text is useful but independent of POI). I am > wondering if it should be moved to TE service mapping draft as I also > see a lot of text repeated from there. > > Figure 2 needs to reconcile with draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang that does > not differentiate between the ACTN and non-ACTN interfaces and list > them together. Would be good to figure out if this difference helps > with the description or hinders it. > > I got lost in section 5.5 but let's leave that for future discussion. > > Thanks! > Dhruv > > > > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 8:08 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram > wrote: >> >> All, >> >> This is start of a two week poll on making >> draft-peru-teas-actn-poi-applicability-05 a TEAS working group document. >> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not >> support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the >> document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd >> like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. >> >> The poll ends Aug 27th. >> >> Thanks, >> Pavan and Lou >> _______________________________________________ >> Teas mailing list >> Teas@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas