Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw

From: Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:05:17 +0100

Dear WG,

We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times
during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read
it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a
feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of
draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item?
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01)

Please respond to the list, including your reasons if you do not support.

Thanks

Julien

P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but
an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors
focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset.

---

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:12:56 +0000

Hi Julien,

Thanks for starting this. I believe the feedbacks collected after the first
discussions significantly improved the scope of the draft, making it narrow,
simple and straight forward.
This is a minor extension to PCEP that allows a better exchange of path
computation results, particularly in an hierarchical environment.
Yes, I would be happy to see this work proceeding.

Thanks,
Daniele  

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: den 13 december 2018 14:05
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw

Dear WG,

We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during
past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked
quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from
the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a
starting point for a PCE work item?
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01)

Thanks

Julien

P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an
adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors focus
their effort on something else than a simple timer reset.

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

---

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:26:55 +0000

Hi,

Yes, Support. 

Thanks.
Young (co-author)

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 7:05 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw

Dear WG,

We discussed about draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw a couple of times during past IETF meetings. At that time, those in the room who had read it looked quite interested, but they were just a few. We now request a feedback from the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as a starting point for a PCE work item?
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01)

Thanks

Julien

P.S.: We are aware that the latest version of the I-D has expired, but an adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors focus their effort on something else than a simple timer reset.

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 04:32:40 +0000

Support for WG adoption. 

I provided higher level comments to the -00 version, which were incorporated. 
There is still work to be done, that can be undertaken post WG adoption (some listed below).

Regards,
Dhruv 

To Do
- Introduction should be section 1
- Remove reference to BANDWIDTH object in section 3
- Reference to (or rather re-use of Unreserved Bandwidth well defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3630#section-2.5.8) in section 2.1
- Reference to (or rather re-use of Residual Bandwidth well defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7471#section-4.5.3) in section 2.2
- We can only define 'path' level and reuse 'link' level description from IGP
- IDNITs - https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw-01.txt
- I am listed as co-author, may be move me to acknowledgement/contributor 

--
Dhruv Dhody 
Lead Architect
Network Business Line
Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield
Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560066 
Tel: + 91-80-49160700 Ext 71583 II Email: [email-masked]

This e-mail and its 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: 13 December 2018 18:35
> To: [email-masked]
> the list: do you support the adoption of draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw as
> a starting point for a PCE work item?
> adoption would solve that and a lack of interest may help the authors

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:24:19 -0000

All,

I read the draft this morning and have no objections, per se. There is
obviously a lot of editorial work to be done, but that is fine and normal at
this stage.

The main challenge I found was determining exactly what the purpose of the
extensions was. I would welcome a clearer statement up front about why these
extensions are needed and what they will enable to happen. I didn't really
get this until reading Section 3 and then 5.1.

Nit to fix soonish. 

In 2.1 you have "priority >= p" forgetting the joy in RFC 3209 that the
highest priority has the lowest numeric value.

Thanks,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: 13 December 2018 13:05
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-lazzeri-pce-residual-bw

Dear WG,

Thanks

Julien