Subject: Re: [Pce] Status of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp

From: Girish Birajdar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:22:22 -0700

Hi,

about #5.4 LSP deletion
" A  PLSP-ID of zero removes all LSPs that were initiated by the PCE...
   Following the removal of the LSP, the PCC
   MUST send a PCRpt as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce].  The
   SRP object in the PCRpt MUST include the SRP-ID-number from the
   PCInitiate message that triggered the removal.  The R flag in the SRP
   object SHOULD be set.
"

The draft needs to clarify PCRpt message for such cases:
1. Does PCC send single PCRpt (with SRP-ID)?
2. PCC sends PCRpt for each deleted LSP. In such cases PCE will have to
accept multiple PCRpt with same SRP-ID.

Thanks
-Girish

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Veitch <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Is there an update regarding this draft and/or any additional supporting
> work needed?   Thanks.
>
> Andy
>
>
> Re: [Pce] Status of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp
> "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]> Tue, 03 May 2016 19:16 UTC
>
> Hi Ina,
> Great that you have this under control.
>
> Looks like "review and review" are the actions on me.
> Will do.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
> From: Ina Minei [mailto:[email-masked] <[email-masked]>]
> Sent: 02 May 2016 17:17
> To: 'Adrian Farrel' ([email-masked])
> Cc: pce; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Status of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp
>
> Adrian,
>
> Thank you for bringing this up. I will repost the initiation draft, I am aware that it expired. Before doing so, will reply to what I think is the unfinished thread (  <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/wn4gGwZnTZS53pbyg1eCHw3YMVE> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/wn4gGwZnTZS53pbyg1eCHw3YMVE) , please let me know if there was a different thread that you are referring to. Thank you for bringing this up, this had completely fallen through the cracks on my end.
>
> Thank you for your offer to help with the stateful PCE I-D. Your help would be appreciated in letting us know if there are pending changes needed, as I
> am assuming that the version posted a month ago addressed all issues, want to make sure this is not a similar situation as the initiation draft.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ina
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In Buenos Aires Jon presented the WG status (thanks) and showed that
> draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp is "Pending shepherd review".
>
> Just looking now (because quite a lot of new work seems to depend on the
> PCInitiate message) I see that:
>
> - The I-D expired a couple of days ago (April 21, 2016)
>
> - The last discussion on the list was an email from Julien suggesting that
>    some work was needed to address open questions on the list.
>
> I'd like to see this I-D move forward now (as well as the stateful PCE I-D!).
> Can I offer my assistance to the authors in any way? I am willing to shovel
> shit, or just make editorial changes.
>
> Let's dig the WG out of the treacle and start to be relevant again :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary
> and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
> persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
> from any computer.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>