Subject: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

From: Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:38:06 +0200

Dear WG,

Following the discussion about the future of the aforementioned document 
and the feedback sent to the list, this message starts a poll for the 
adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions-03 by the PCE WG.
Pay attention to the document scope: the goal is _not_ to leave the I-D 
open to gather all questions about PCE, but to store some useful text 
associated to PCE by moving forward as an informational document.

Please send your support/opposition to the PCE mailing list (the latter 
typically requiring some explanation). Detailed comments on the I-D are 
also welcome.

Thanks,

JP & Julien

---

From: Oscar González de Dios <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:39:59 +0000

Yes support.

Best Regards,

        Oscar

>_______________________________________________
>Pce mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

---

From: "BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:43:35 +0000

Support

Best Regards
Sergio

Belotti Sergio-  System Architect
ALCATE-LUCENT  Optics Division
via Trento 30 Vimercate (MB) - Italy
phone +39 (039) 6863033

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Per conto di Julien Meuric
Inviato: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:38 PM
A: [email-masked]
Oggetto: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Dear WG,

Thanks,

JP & Julien

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:05:55 +0100

In case anyone should wonder...

As one of the authors, I support this idea. I think it would be valuable to have
this work pass through the working group to be modified and gain consensus.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julien
> Meuric
> Sent: 19 June 2013 14:38
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions
> 
> Dear WG,
>

---

From: Huaimo Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:22:39 +0000

Support!

Best Regards,
Huaimo

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Dear WG,

Following the discussion about the future of the aforementioned document and the feedback sent to the list, this message starts a poll for the adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions-03 by the PCE WG.
Pay attention to the document scope: the goal is _not_ to leave the I-D open to gather all questions about PCE, but to store some useful text associated to PCE by moving forward as an informational document.

Please send your support/opposition to the PCE mailing list (the latter typically requiring some explanation). Detailed comments on the I-D are also welcome.

Thanks,

JP & Julien

---

From: Ina Minei <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:51:06 +0000

Support.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 6:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Dear WG,

Thanks,

JP & Julien

---

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:03:46 +0000

Support.

Young

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Dear WG,

Thanks,

JP & Julien

---

From: Fatai Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 00:53:16 +0000

Support.

Best Regards

Fatai

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Dear WG,

Thanks,

JP & Julien

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:58:44 +0800

Support

Julien Meuric <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2013-06-19 下午 09:38

收件人
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
抄送

主题
[Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Dear WG,

Thanks,

JP & Julien

---

From: "Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:52:16 +0000

Support

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Cyril Margaria
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:38 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Following the discussion about the future of the aforementioned
> document and the feedback sent to the list, this message starts a poll
> for the adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions-03 by the PCE WG.

---

From: Ramon Casellas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:37:35 +0200

> for the adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions-03 by the PCE WG.
yes, support

Thanks, R.

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:46:15 +0530

Support! 

Comments on the I-D: 
********************
* Sec 2.  What Is Topology Information?
Suggest to use SRLG instead of SRG, similar to the term used in RFC5440. 
    
* Sec 3.  How Is Topology Information Gathered?   
Another issue faced when using IGP to fed TED is the area-scope issue. Since
IGP-TE flooding scope is per area, an multi-area PCE must have a IGP peer
for all the areas. 
Also I think we can augment this section to include 'How PCE learn about
Boundary Nodes?'. 

* Sec 5.  How Do I Select Between PCEs?
Along with capability, you can also mention the PCE's preference for each
computation scope as carried in the PATH-SCOPE subtlv.  

* Sec 6. How Do Redundant PCEs Synchronize TEDs?
Some Nits: 
OLD: 
The TED reflects the actual state of the network and does not a
resource reservation or booking scheme.
NEW: 
The TED reflects the actual state of the network and does not 
represent a resource reservation or booking scheme.

Also you may add a reference to section 13 when describing "sticky
resources".

* Sec 11.  How Is The Parent PCE Domain Topology Built?
Another way to look at this is, the child PCE provide its domain as well as
its adjacent domain(s) information to the Parent PCE, which can help parent
PCE to build a domain interconnection map (basically a Parent PCE domain
topology). Along with other mechanism mentioned I would suggest if we can
add this as well. 

* Sec 13.  What are Sticky Resources?
OLD:
This can result in LSP setup failures are there is contention for
resources.
NEW:
This can result in LSP setup failures if there is contention for
resources.

OLD:
When LSP setup fails, how are the sticky resources?
NEW:
When LSP setup fails, how are the sticky resources handled?

* Sec 15.  How Does a Stateful PCE Learn LSP State From The Network?
'The LSP-DB contains information about the LSPs that are active in the
network, as mentioned in Section 15.'

There is a self-reference to section 15. Loop indeed! :D

* Sec 16.  How Do Redundant Stateful PCEs Synchronize State?
I have some reservations regarding this statement - 
'building the LSP-DB can be an involved process, so it would be best to not
have multiple PCEs each trying to build an LSP-DB from the network.' 
IMO if PCRpt message are used to build the LSP-DB, the network will provide
the LSP state information to all the stateful PCEs. Any synchronization
between PCEs should leverage this in addition to new mechanism that get
developed (cross-checking). 

* Sec 18.  What is LSP Delegation?
This sections gives an impression that the delegation of LSP can only be
done once the LSP is setup and then LSR (PCC) passes responsibility for
triggering reoptimization or re-routing of an LSP to the PCE. In case of a
new tunnel configuration with delegation enabled, IMHO the PCC should be
able to delegate even when it has no path right now. 

* Sec 20.  Comparison of Stateless and Stateful PCE
Though 'Active instantiate LSPs' out of scope currently, but IMHO a few
lines on its applicability will be useful. 

And that's it! 

I hope authors would incorporate these comments in future version. 

Dhruv

****************************************************************************
***
Dhruv Dhody, System Architect, Huawei Technologies, Bangalore, India, Ph.
+91-9845062422
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI,
which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed
above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including,
but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or
dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is
prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!

> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:08 PM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: Udayasree <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:31:16 +0530

support

-----Original Message-----

Dear WG,

Thanks,

JP & Julien

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:19:42 -0400

Support.

Brgds, Durgaprasad "DG"  Gangisetti.

---

From: Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:45:01 -0700

Support.

---

From: "Jan Medved (jmedved)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:11:45 +0000

+1

On 6/21/13 12:45 PM, "Edward Crabbe" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Support.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:19 AM, <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Support.

On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Julien Meuric <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Dear WG,

Thanks,

JP & Julien

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:25:52 +0000

Hi, Adrian and All, 

   I support this. As stated in the beginning of the draft, it does fill the gap for new comers to avoid things like "missed out on early discussions within the working group and are unfamiliar with
   questions that were raised during the development of the documentation.". 

   Moreover, I also use the draft to understand current hot topics/drafts. So, several points I would like to raise/discuss here, hope this helps for the draft update: 

1: I am aware this draft does not intend to cover "every question". However, it should at least address topics under active discussions. So, I wonder whether the draft should also capture the topic of overlay, i.e. using PCE for the scenarios where UNI/ONI(?) is present, which there are already several drafts in CCAMP WG, if related issues has been discussed before? Such as: how to discover the UNI/ONI interfaces if PCE is used in this context? Whether H-PCE is helpful? etc. I am not sure which sections are relevant exactly. Maybe Section 3, 4? Maybe some simple explanations plus a reference to the relevant I-D draft(s) would suffice.

2: In Section 3, it states "Note that this exchange of PCE capabilities is in the form of an
   announcement, not a negotiation.  That is, a PCC that wants specific
   function from a PCE must examine the advertised capabilities and
   select which PCE to use for a specific request.  There is no scope
   for a PCC to request a PCE to support features or functions that it
   does not offer or announce."

From what we currently have in Section 5.3 of draft -ietf-pce-stateful-pce-04, it seems to me that LSP modification capability is negotiated *not* advertised. The reason is obvious since it is a two-way thing. Just wonder whether phrase likes "stateful PCE capability negotiation" in the WG draft or the text above should be modified to avoid confusion? 

3: Section 18, it states "LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where a PCC
   (usually an ingress LSR) passes responsibility for triggering
   reoptimization or re-routing of an LSP to the PCE."

LSP delegation covers wider purpose than stated above, right? For example providing protection paths, as described in draft -ietf-pce-stateful-pce-00. 

4: Section 21: By looking at the last paragraph, especially the last sentence, can I interpret it as "For the single PCE model where one PCE controls multiple layers, given the PCE is active stateful, this PCE performs the function of path computation and triggering of LSP setup(VNMT function)"? If so, seems there is no need for VNTM in this model and thus the explanation in Section 22 is not applicable. I suggest to give the type of PCE you are using for the explanation, it would make things clearer. 

5: Section 24 writes: " - An Active PCE must have a policy relationship with its LSRs to
     determine which LSPs can be modified or triggered, and what LSP
     delegation is supported."

Does it mean the active capability of a PCE is configured on a per-node based, or even per LSP based? This seems to be a bit too complicated and not practical. Does it make sense to say LSRs should have the local policy to decide whether to delegate a LSP and what parameters is allowed to modify? Different from the statement above, it does not need PCE to agree/negotiate. Maybe that is exactly what the above sentence wants to say, but for now it is not clear to me. 

Regards,
Xian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 2013年6月19日 23:06
To: 'Julien Meuric'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Adrian

---

From: Avantika <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:52:57 +0000

Support!

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:08 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-farrkingel-pce-questions

Dear WG,

Thanks,

JP & Julien