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

Aijun Wang <> Fri, 22 January 2021 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0ABD3A0F61; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:03:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7y1QF9jgopxB; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4983A0F5E; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 18:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clientip- (unknown []) by (HERMES) with SMTP id 3DB852800B2; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 10:03:02 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by App0021 with ESMTP id d2a026294fb34e70990e767f643256b4 for; Fri Jan 22 10:03:10 2021
X-Transaction-ID: d2a026294fb34e70990e767f643256b4
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
From: Aijun Wang <>
Cc: 'The IESG' <>,,,, 'Lou Berger' <>
References: <> <002501d6efbf$3eaa79c0$bbff6d40$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 10:02:59 +0800
Message-ID: <006c01d6f062$bb066cb0$31134610$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006D_01D6F0A5.C92A48F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQLtXchHzglxKVlcnuCJFoiaOefr5QHQ2B2ZAmFgMwyn5HcFIA==
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)
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: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 02:03:19 -0000

Hi, Martin:


From: <> 
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:51 PM
To: Aijun Wang <>
Cc: The IESG <>;;;; Lou Berger <>
Subject: Re: Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-15: (with COMMENT)


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?

[WAJ] The control plane of the router should be updated, but the data plane, specially the forwarding line card should be kept as its way. 


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.

[WAJ] Thanks a lot.


On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:33 PM Aijun Wang < <> > 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: <>  < <> > 
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 6:49 AM
To: The IESG < <> >
Cc: <> ; <> ; <> ; Lou Berger < <> >; <> 
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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


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?