* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Pce Status Pages

Path Computation Element (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Martin Vigoureux | 2005-Jan-12 —  

IETF-102 pce minutes

Session 2018-07-18 1330-1500: Notre Dame - Audio stream - pce chatroom


minutes-102-pce-00 minutes

          PCE Working Group Meeting – 13:30-15:00 Wednesday Afternoon session I
             o Chairs: Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Meuric (remote)
             o Secretery: Dhruv Dhody
             o Slide - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/session/pce
             o Etherpad -
             o Meetecho:  http://www.meetecho.com/ietf102/pce
          1. Introduction
          1.1. Administrivia, Agenda Bashing (chairs, 5 min)
          1.2. WG Status (chairs, 20 min) [25/90]
          Jonathan Hardwick: For draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type, 2 authors have not
                             replied to AUTH48 . Please respond!
          Daniel King: For draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability, Is there
                       interest in the WG to update this document?
          Jon: Significant "editorial" comments to improve the documents and
          the major
               issue and there was no information on the the stateful PCE
          Daniel King: I can take the lead and delegate some of the work to the
                       co-authors but want to be sure if there is interest to update
                       the document.
          Poll: Is there interest in inter-area-as applicability further.
                A few raised hands.
          Deborah Brungard: This is a milestone on PCE charter since 2013.
          Young Lee: For draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext, shepherd review done by
                     Young to address the comments next.
          Julien Meuric (Meetecho): The proto write-up for RWA is even ready to go.
          Jon: Request for document shepherds for the WG documents in the
          queue. Please
          Dhruv Dhody: For draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang, already updated with examples,
                       idnits, request for the yang doctor review;
          Dhruv: The other documents are moving well,  don't have any pending action
                 items, please review and send comments to the list and we hope
                 to move
                 them quickly.
          Haomian Zheng: For draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors, aim to make the
          draft ready
                         by next meeting.
          Adrian Farrel: For draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec, moving along well,
                         implementation side, a question - to what extend this
                         needs to
                         harmonize with SR-TE policy. Opinions?
          Jon: This is an open question from last meeting as well. We need to handle
               this as the draft progress.
          2. WG I-Ds
          2.1. Update on Association Drafts (Dhruv Dhody, 10 min) [35/90]
          Various Drafts
          No questions
          2.2. Stateful H-PCE and ACTN (Young Lee, 15 min) [50/90]
          No questions
          3. PCE as central controller
          3.1. PCECC Drafts (Dhruv Dhody, 15 min) [65/90]
          Igor Bryskin: Are PCInitiates done in sequence or parallel?
          Dhruv: Parallel
          Igor: How does the controller know?
          Dhruv: We usually start from the egress to ingress, but we have PCRpt
                 to clearly tell if the download was okay and re-compute path
                 if not!
          Andrew Stone: If PSLP-ID (LSP) is mandatory, how does this apply to SR?
          Dhruv: Coming back to this later in the SR mode
          Igor: what do you "make" during the Make-Before-Break? Entire path?
          Dhruv: Yes
          Igor: It may be just a path revision, rather than full E2E
                as done in RSVP-TE.
          Dhruv: We dont differentiate between changes needed only in a few
          nodes v/s
                 entire path, Will consider the terminology changes with you
                 (if needed).
          Andrew: Can you put the correlation between PCEP session and router id
          in an
                  individual draft? As it might have applicability beyond this!
          Dhruv: Can be done!
          Haomian: For re-delegation, more than PCE down, it is also worth to
                   the overloading on any PCE, and balance some nodes/LSP to another
          Dhruv : This is consistent with RFC8231 overload mechanism and we don't
                  differentiate between LSP state and this!
          Igor: In case of network re-convergence, can you program multiple updates
          to a
                node on a single message?
          Dhruv: Yes, this is allowed via existing PCInitiate message.
          Jon: Allow for capability advertisement for PCECC-SR only (without
          basic PCECC
          Dhruv: This can be added, the current mechanism could be a historical
                 of the older version where we had a "new message" defined in
                 the basic
          Jon: Do you want to adopt both PCE-CC and SR?
          Dhruv: Yes
          Poll:  On draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller;
             How many have read the draft? ~around 12
             How many would like to see WG adoption? ~ around 12;
          Poll: On draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr;
             How many have read the draft? ~around 8
             How many would like to see WG adoption? ~ around 8;
          Jon: There is good support in the room so we will ask the same questions
               the mailing list.
          3.2. New Extentions (Cheng Li, 15 min) [80/90]
          Jeff Tentsura: You are not signaling co-routed in the bi-directional
                         Any reason not include co-routed bi-directional co-routed?
          Cheng Li: It may be co-routed in this association, we did not restrict or
                    specify in the draft, may do that later.
          Jeff: For accounting, path ID needs to be informed on all nodes and PCEP
                session may be needed to all nodes, like flooding!
          Cheng Li: Path-ID is informed to ingress and egress and not inspected
          by the
                    transit for basic use case.
          Jeff: The beauty of SR is we removed state from the network and this
          is also
                the ugly part.
          Dhruv: In the current version, we inform path ID to Ingress and Egress
                 for the path accounting use-case this might change but now with
                 PCECC SR
                 we are moving towards PCEP as SBI and thus we need to handle this
                 upfront anyways.
          4. Previously Discussed Topics
          4.1. ACTN VN Association (Daniele Ceccarelli, 10 min) [90/90]
          Igor: This is a good idea but could it be done in a generic way rather
          at a
                "VN association" specifically. Just like a group of LSPs in a mesh.
          Daniele Ceccarelli: Association is anyway generic, This is a new
                              type, you could define another!
          Igor: Think of a TE tunnel set.
          Daniele: You can define another association.
          Young: What Igor is asking is can it cover more than VN, with a generic TE
                 tunnel set included.
          Poll: Who has read the draft ~ around 12
                a good based to adopt? ~ around 10
          Jon: Discuss with Igor on list and I will discuss with my co-chair
          and take
               it to the list!
          -- Meeting Done, See ya in Bangkok --

Generated from PyHt script /wg/pce/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -