IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 30 September 2016 13:14 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 169AA12B147 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 06:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 5uilXbEsCnQB for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 06:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BB1712B0FD for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 06:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u8UDDxYT018490; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:13:59 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ([84.93.28.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u8UDDwHt018460 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:13:59 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)'" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>, 'Igor Bryskin' <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>
References: <b2134da4-a438-0462-b7b2-ccb5a6d7a858@labn.net> <000efdef-b3b1-56d5-80db-1193a3026105@labn.net> <0C72C38E7EBC34499E8A9E7DD007863908EFCBC3@dfweml501-mbx> <09ea01d21b18$1149f3f0$33dddbd0$@olddog.co.uk> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D48AC9527@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D48AC9527@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:13:52 +0100
Message-ID: <09f101d21b1c$8088d110$819a7330$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGJaZ8yC2TH33Bk9Yfea3ElEfsLYwK1IXSeAVdjs3ICY6BL9wG7i5NwoOIGoqA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22608.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.927-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--10.927-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 9zTThWtzImsn2WEbWzq9rVmW6+4cR52EzJmqByfAaS1hb6wYa04uHef1 FRvbDqwVU/whGTxeEs+D6rSxwzx6EBgC11h6mOpC3FqOVb7PDEJkBDPLxNH5BkmDyxNPdHMX2gl ssGrvJsajPwdOX7PV9n8vHqIwBzQYVB55dkRMs8xCvapcIkxJXyAiV9lwjDugHYyoxCSlv+9pGe 7B2ogoexF9goDxV3zoX7bicKxRIU2No+PRbWqfRDsAVzN+Ov/sCgZA9EC7+eA1TqjaZz7tFgDsK QlEJRp0wYfKHTYTFcnG1fZbjkzlog==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/wuPKUZNFIec9kRmJynbHI3B9VC4>
Cc: 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:14:20 -0000

> > I suppose we have to choose. At the time of writing, no-one had seriously
> > proposed using PCEP on that interface. I suppose we would only consider that
> > if there is enthusiasm to implement. Do you want to?
> >
> > But look at Figure 6.
> 
> I am not aware of any enthusiasm to implement PCEP on some interfaces shown
> in Figure 6.

I suspect you a referring to some specific interfaces rather than all interfaces in Fig 6.
But which i/fs are you concerned about?
Does this mean that you don't believe there is support for H-PCE as (discussed in RFC 6805), or that you don't think PCEs should talk to NEs (as discussed in RFC 5440)? 
Or are you talking about the "NBI" between orchestrator and PCE-based controller?

If you mean this last point then I will step back and let anyone who likes the idea speak up.

Cheers,
Adrian
--
Support an author and your imagination.
Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales.
More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen MORE new fairy tales.
https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
Or buy from me direct.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email