Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 07:26:50 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.

        Title           : PCEP Extension for Flow Specification
        Authors         : Dhruv Dhody
                          Adrian Farrel
                          Zhenbin Li
	Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11.txt
	Pages           : 37
	Date            : 2020-10-05

Abstract:
   The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a functional component capable
   of selecting paths through a traffic engineering network.  These
   paths may be supplied in response to requests for computation, or may
   be unsolicited requests issued by the PCE to network elements.  Both
   approaches use the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to convey the
   details of the computed path.

   Traffic flows may be categorized and described using "Flow
   Specifications".  RFC XXXX defines the Flow Specification and
   describes how Flow Specification Components are used to describe
   traffic flows.  RFC XXXX also defines how Flow Specifications may be
   distributed in BGP to allow specific traffic flows to be associated
   with routes.

   This document specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to support
   dissemination of Flow Specifications.  This allows a PCE to indicate
   what traffic should be placed on each path that it is aware of.

   The extensions defined in this document include the creation, update,
   and withdrawal of Flow Specifications via PCEP, and can be applied to
   tunnels initiated by the PCE or to tunnels where control is delegated
   to the PCE by the PCC.  Furthermore, a PCC requesting a new path can
   include Flow Specifications in the request to indicate the purpose of
   the tunnel allowing the PCE to factor this into the path computation.

   RFC Editor Note: Please replace XXXX in the Abstract with the RFC
   number assigned to draft-ietf-idr-rfc5575bis when it is published.
   Please remove this note.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:34:28 +0100

Alvaro and Ben,

Very sorry for delaying this progress so much and possibly causing your
cache not only to be flushed, but the archive tapes sent to the fire-vault
in Utah.

The last issue you had remaining was that 5575bis has removed the
possibility of multiple Flow Specification components of the same type being
present in one flow specification. We have aligned with this with two
changes:
- Added text to Section 7 saying:
   As described in [I-D.ietf-idr-rfc5575bis]
   where it says "A given component type MAY (exactly once) be present
   in the Flow Specification," a Flow Filter TLV MUST NOT contain more
   than one Flow Specification TLV of the same type: an implementation
   that receives a PCEP message with a Flow Filter TLV that contains more
   than one Flow Specification TLV of the same type MUST respond with a
   PCErr message with error-type TBD8 (FlowSpec Error), error-value 2
   (Malformed FlowSpec) and MUST NOT install the Flow Specification.
- Section 8.4 has been rewritten to mainly say "use separate Flow 
  Specification Objects for separate flow specifications"

This -11 revision picks up all other outstanding comments and nits.

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: I-D-Announce <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: 05 October 2020 15:27
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-11.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.

Abstract:

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 23:31:52 +0200

Hi Adrian!

I looked at the diffs and I’m happy with the changes.  I’m clearing.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On October 5, 2020 at 10:35:22 AM, Adrian Farrel ([email-masked])
wrote:

Alvaro and Ben,

possibility of multiple Flow Specification components of the same type
being

Best,
Adrian

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

Abstract:

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 14:45:41 -0700

Sadly it will probably be a bit of a wait before I can do the same -- I've
got a few other documents in front of this on my todo list; might be a week
or two.  (Reminders and/or requests to reprioritize are, of course,
welcome.)

-Ben

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 18:01:01 -0700

Hi Adrian,

It turns out that the tapes were still in the local safe awaiting transfer
to Utah.  Nonessential travel still restricted, and whatnot...

Thanks for the updates in the -11; I've change my position to No Objection.

Deborah: if I understand correctly, this one is ready to be approved.

-Ben