Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 02 July 2020 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 6F13D3A0B33; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KzRlFLO6v_qe; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB8443A0B0A; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 062HIQps007231; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:18:26 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BFC2203A; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:18:26 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8382522032; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:18:26 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.113.100.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 062HIPbJ022642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:18:26 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
References: <CA+YzgTt3fWp7FJ=VchzWGChxcSq6GYNuwseM1zJqByxm9CKKXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAB75xn6pgMzE8nsqVewxAAxmNu1S=myJbS-27hpjQwJOBFd6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn6pgMzE8nsqVewxAAxmNu1S=myJbS-27hpjQwJOBFd6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:18:25 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <03c501d65094$cc043ce0$640cb6a0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQF8mBxKPsHsWejWq0Xf7Uh+PFlHFALHVCS4qZG31WA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 87.113.100.254
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25518.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--20.300-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--20.300-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25518.001
X-TMASE-Result: 10--20.299800-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: x2HXvaraFonxIbpQ8BhdbIicBKfMHlV8pQH4ogtVQP1i0lpUl7/AsbgZ +7EzWJ94vIeFiBIYzG+cwLltVNRH4vNXGgBwLFZFN19PjPJahlI5jnhtrTfZ5i62hjZS0WoYUIM pgW4a9z8GsrTFQIBNVY0GBwM7K7Dj77DVjCN3x4j1WO1NzV/CYGQBrQiRNt2IUixrX0voy5wM6X BtKTGUp0VX+gcTS+xfwoHE1u2W4vHitFyz/ok4p+5PwPleACzC2ikNBi4UTw/8Js19y6otgMFmo R0nJmM9mDocuID3nXxPfBngLDnpSxmnVN1AL7t0oxjrap5AGQuW31x27U9QYoiDsvgbpEMTVhYZ jy1spv5N2y1SBg1evBvw1uMq2Q8e1u+8t82ayB3J/bVh4iw9hsiSpZfTU/nYEt/W/Pt5w8fabbo DkkbpiwDz8Dsr7xPR1GSB9fBBdJGb1Pjbq+PtLPZvT2zYoYOwC/ExpXrHizxWtjflsIhD8E6Zd+ 949uh5EEiu+Q0mwc5XM3ffW6oOYjd/MTfApr+sHcQQBuf4ZFuhp756/rM6Uslgi/vLS272tNfew smJeFbdTAmCcpzVLsuT6pyURQPh5UcZtwNsCro5f9Xw/xqKXcidYBYDjITpi2QFaYS1v20qtq5d 3cxkNQP90fJP9eHt
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/c_rcBLvbJ3RzBXNTaERwyg3vFeY>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis
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, 02 Jul 2020 17:18:34 -0000

Hi again Pavan,

I posted the -00 version of the WG draft.
Sorry, I forgot to include the "replaces" information. Would you mind adding
it?

I have a -01 in my edit buffer with the change to 4.1.3, and I have added a
section to collect changes from the RFC version.

I hope the WG will discuss the "what is TE?" question more deeply.

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 30 June 2020 15:45
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis

Hi,
Thanks to Adrian & DT for this work!

I wanted to do a substantial review of the I-D but it looks like that
has to wait for a later date :)

I managed to skim through it focusing on the changes and caught
nothing that should impede the adoption of this work.
I would have liked to see a section listing changes since RFC 3272
(but not sure how practical that is).
The diff-tool [1] was somewhat useful.

Two random points -
=
- Query: In section 1.2 -

   The key elements required in any TE solution are:

   1.  Policy
   2.  Path steering
   3.  Resource management

Does that mean any solution that just does 1 and 2 and doesn't do 3 is
not TE? Would SR-Policy and BIER-Tree engineering fall under that?
Note that we have SR-MPLS covered (rightfully so) in Section 4.1.14
under IETF techniques. I am wondering if partial-TE is a thing?
=
- Section 4.1.3, this needs to be updated -

   A number of IETF working groups have been engaged in activities
   related to the RSVP protocol.  These include the original RSVP
   working group, the MPLS working group, the Resource Allocation
   Protocol working group, and the Policy Framework working group.
=

Thanks!
Dhruv

[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=rfc3272&url2=draft-dt
-teas-rfc3272bis-11

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:09 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<vishnupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> This is start of a two week poll on making
> draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis-11 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 June 30th.
>
> Thanks,
> Pavan
> _______________________________________________
> 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