PCE Working Group Meeting - Monday, July 26, 2010, 13:00 PM

1. Introduction

- No agenda changes.

- See slides for PCE WG milestones.

- Two new RFCs (RFC5682 & RFC5886) since IETF 77.

- Co-chairs reminded working group to please use the mailing list for discussions, as a number of discussions concerning PCE work are happening offline.

2.1. PCEP MIB (Daniel King)

- Co-authors plan to prepare new version addressing outstanding comments.

- Daniel King mentioned co-authors will finalize the document and aim to request working group last call before IETF 79.

2.2. P2MP MIB (Quintin Zhao)

- Co-chairs polled the room to check support for the document: ten in favor, no one opposed.

- Quintin Zhao mentioned co-authors will submit a new version of the document in around two weeks.

- Working group adoption will be requested on the mailing list once the new version has been submitted.

3.1. Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCE. (Fatai Zhang)

- Fatai Zhang and co-authors requested that the WG continue to consider any additional requirements. This draft will to stay active while solutions are developed.

3.2. PCEP Extensions for GMPLS (Cyril Margaria)

- Per RFC5440, it’s not possible to add TLV to the BANDWIDTH object and the object (not the type) length is 4

- Co-chairs request that the co-authors request code points as early as possible and co-ordinate with other WGs as necessary.

- Co-chairs polled the room to check support for the document: 10 had read the document, 8 in favor of WG adoption, no one opposed.

- Working group adoption will be requested on the mailing list after IETF 78.

4.1. Applicability of PCE to Inter-Area and -AS MPLS and GMPLS TE (Daniel King)

- Co-authors will liaise with co-chairs and additional vendors who are willing to provide feedback on inter-area scenarios.

- Co-authors will provide a new version of the document and then send a request to the co-chairs to poll for working group adoption.

4.2. PCEP Extension for Enhanced Errors and Notifications (Helia Pouyllau)

- Co-chairs suggested that the authors also review the recent manageability RFC to indentify if any extensions and new message types can be reused.

- Co-chairs felt that in general these enhancements are useful.

- Feedback from the room (Oscar González de Dios), to the co-authors included that the propagation of errors should not be imposed and some path computation notifications should be sent as warnings and not errors. JP Vasseur also underlined that any enhancements that affect global behavior (state machine) will need careful consideration and discussion.

5. IGP Extensions for Boundary Node Discovery (Dhruv Dhody)

- Co-chairs reminded the co-authors and working group that they previously had extensive discussion with the ISIS and OSPF working groups regarding the expansion of routing information, current consensus is that existing solutions are adequate.

- The co-chairs also asked the co-authors to expand on why existing solutions are complicated or incomplete. It is important not to duplicate effort by creating new mechanisms unnecessarily. The co-authors felt that a uniform method was required and will update the document to articulate the reasoning why these new enhancements are needed.

- Feedback from the room (co-chairs, Igor Bryskin and Wenhu Lu) established that expanding existing IGP functionality and forcing all ABRs to advertise information may be unnecessary and further discussion on this topic has to take place.

- Dhruv Dhody underlined that the method for discovering information was intentionally out of scope of this document. This document is intended to establish how ABR information can be carried.

6. Charter Session

- Co-chairs have been working on a re-charter proposal including making certain topics more explicit including: GMPLS, inter-layer, larger inter-domain topologies (and the applicability of hierarchical PCE for small numbers of domains) and definition of domain groups (domain number) in the charter.

- Routing area AD (Adrian Farrel) felt the text “small groups” should be kept in the charter text. He also underlined hierarchical PCE can be applied to domain topologies encompassing as few as three domains.

- Feedback from Service Providers (Oscar González de Dios) gave examples of PCE control of domain topologies. An example of PCE being used included five domains, consisting of 30 nodes per domain.

- Co-chairs will provide draft re-charter items and text to the working group in the following weeks.

- Co-chairs are proposing the use of the IETF Trac system for PCE activities. Good feedback from the room (including Daniel King) for using Trac in the PCE working group. Daniel King will setup and create Trac tickets to monitor PCE re-chartering actions.

- Igor Bryskin raised the issue of PCE errors and troubleshooting path computation requests. JP Vasseur referred Igor to RFC5886 (A Set of Monitoring Tools for PCE-based architecture).