83, PCE Session
Thursday, March 29, 2012
1740-1940 Afternoon Session III
1. WG Status
Strong reminder from the WG chairs to authors regarding IPR disclosure.
Chairs requested that the co-authors of draft-ietf-pce-vpn-req to provide an update of their draft. No author was able to provide a response.
Chairs requested that the authors of the MIB drafts provide an update. An author responded that a refresh was imminent.
Authors of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength are close to LC and WG is requested to submit any final comments. Vendor Constraints – Feedback received during IETF 83, will issue new update.
2.1. PCEP Extensions for GMPLS
Chairs highlighted that requirements should be considered for LC first, and then the solutions document. Both are documents are close to LC and will be scheduled accordingly.
2.2. WSON Optical Interface Class
Author thanked for presentation and the document will continue to be developed in CCAMP.
3.1. PCEP Extension for Enhanced Errors and Notifications
Chairs agreed that the document does provide useful updates for the PCEP specification.
It was highlighted that a default priority value for errors is required for the document.
Strong support for the document becoming a WG document. This will be confirmed on the mailing list.
3.2. Representation of Domain Sequence
Chair requested clarification on “Referenced by other documents”. Author explained that other documents have referenced the draft. Chair underlined that not all documents have mandated this behavior.
Good support for the document becoming a WG document. This will be confirmed on the mailing list.
4.1. PCEP Extensions for Stateful Control
Author was requested to clarify state instance number, and if this was optional or mandatory. Strong suggestion not to make this optional.
It was also proposed that requirements and use cases should be broken out into a separate document. Further discussion is requested from the WG.
4.2. Applicability of Stateful PCE
Requirements (including applicability – RSVP-TE, et al.) and further discussion is requested on the list.
4.3. PCEP Extensions for Temporary Reservation of Computed Path Resources and Support for Limited Context State
There is concern that this proposal overlaps PCE mechanisms with NMS functionality. Author did highlight that these procedures are not intended to replace the NMS. A clear case needs to be made for this “special case” of stateful (resource booking, LSP state) PCE, this solution should follow stateful requirements discussions.
5.1 The Applicability of the PCE to Computing Protection and Recovery Paths
An ABR could be used for computing FRR between domains. It’s not clear what FRR scenarios are not (i.e., Gaps) currently addressed with existing solutions.
5.2. PCEP extensions for the computation of route offers with price
Concern that this work is out of scope of the WG. The authors were reminded that the WG focuses on protocol development, rather that the contents of the protocol itself.
5.3. Cross Stratum Optimization enabled Path Computation
Chair outlined that the work is too early to integrate with existing WG efforts.
5.4. PCE Traffic Engineering Database (TED) Requirements
This topic was discussed on the list a number of years ago and authors were recommended to review previous discussions. Authors should contact JP for further information.
Authors were requested to clarify the role of the document (BCP, Solutions, Framework, etc.)