Minutes IETF100: pce
minutes-100-pce-02

   PCE Working Group Meeting - Monday, November 13, 2017; 15:50-17:20
   Monday Afternoon session II

      o Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/session/pce
      o Etherpad: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-100-
      pce?useMonospaceFont=true
      o Meetecho: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf100/pce
      o Chairs: Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Meuric (remote)
      o Secretery: Dhruv Dhody

   1. Introduction 1.1. Administrivia, Agenda Bashing (chairs, 5 min)

      - No comments on agenda bashing

   1.2. WG Status (chairs, 20 min) [25/90]

      Jonathan Hardwick: Stateful PCE is published as RFC 8231 finally!!
      Good to see PCEPS published as well.
      Jon: For draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability, re-check if
      we should include stateful PCE details now that stateful PCE RFC
      is published, and if so, the draft will go back to the WG.
      Dhruv Dhody: For draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang,  YANG model draft is
      now stable. Reviews from YANG doctors would be nice, and can go
      along with other TE YANG models.
      Dhruv: ACTN-related drafts (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce, draft-
      ietf-pce-applicability-actn) are now aligned with the latest ACTN
      framework and stable.
      Stephane Litkowski: Association diversity draft (draft-ietf-pce-
      association-diversity) has addressed a few comments, a small
      change is to be exptected. For policy (draft-ietf-pce-association-
      policy), we are considering adding another TLV for variables for
      policy.
      Dhruv: Regarding scheduling (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-
      scheduling), an update was made to keep it aligned with TEAS
      documents as well as RFC8231 and other PCE WG document. More
      reviews would be nice.
      Zafar Ali (proxy by Kamran): For draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-
      gmpls and draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp, will be
      refreshed tonight.
      Haomian offered to take over editor role for draft-ietf-pce-
      enhanced-errors.

   2. WG's I-Ds 2.1. Stateful PCE for P2MP LSPs (Pavan, 5 min) [30/90]
   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-05

      Vishnu Pavan Beeram: Request WG LC
      Jon: Request a few reviews of the document as we move this
      document to WG LC and get more eyes on it

   3. New I-Ds 3.1. PCEP Extensions for SR leveraging the IPv6 data
   plane (Dhruv Dhody, 10 min) [40/90] draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-
   ipv6-00

      Jeff Tantsura: This work is useful and makes sense.
      Jon: It feels obvious to do this. Heads up that LSP-setup-type
      draft will change and that would need to be updated here. This
      draft has a dependency on an issue in the Segment routing draft
      and that should be discussed on the list.
      Jeff: Regarding the dependencies with SRv6 network programming
      work, keep the your extension simple, if you include SRv6 network
      programming details, you would need to wait for a while.
      Dhruv: Yes, we could keep it simple, and make sure it can be
      extend easily later.

   4. Previously Discussed Topics 4.1 Association for Path Protection
   (Dhruv Dhody, 10 min) [50/90] draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-
   path-protection-04 draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04

      Jon: Association extended to support Protection would be a good
      idea.
      Poll: How many have read this document? (around 10, good number!)
      Jon: Would take it to the list.

   4.2 Association for Bidirectional LSP (Rakesh Gandhi, 10 min) [60/90]
   draft-barth-pce-association-bidir-03

      Poll: How many have read this document? (around 6)
      Jon: Would take it to the list, make sure enough eyes on it.
      Jon: Clarification question on double-sided bi-directional lsp.
      Himanshu Shah: Interesting draft, would like to see this adopted.

   4.3 PCEP to support Resource Sharing (Haomian Zheng, 10 min) [70/90]
   draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-05

      Himanshu: Clarification question on diversity v/s sharing
      Poll: How many have read this document? (around 10-12)
      Poll: How many think it is a reasonable base and dopted? (about
      the same)

   4.4 Syncronization between Stateful PCEs (Dhruv Dhody, 5 min) [75/90]
   draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-02

      Adrian Farrel: To confirm, are you assuming the sync is always
      from a master PCE to slave PCE? And never to a master.
      Dhruv: Yes, the forwarding rules are defined in such a way to make
      sure that the master has the latest information.
      Jon: Wants to understand the use case better.  Are there multiple
      active PCEs in the network for redundancy and load balancing?
      Dhruv: In the -00 version, only computation loop and redundancy
      was considered, it was further expanded to include more use-cases
      like inter-domain and H-PCE as well.
      Jon: Could these use cases be addressed by horizontal scaling
      within the PCE software?  Do we need a communication standard
      protocol between different PCE instances?
      Dhruv: Both are needed. In some case PCE instances inside cluster
      could use DB sync techniques.
      Jon: You have some other use case on inter-domain, not sure the
      use there either?
      Dhruv: For inter-domain LSP, we need to exchange information for
      inter-domain LSP crossing multiple domains between cooperating
      PCEs for stateful PCE model and similarly for H-PCE keeping the
      database synchronized from child to parent.
      Poll: How many have read this draft?  (only 3-4 hands raised)
      Jon: Not enough traction and get more people involved.
      Stephane: The application based redundancy (such as DB sync) have
      some constraints, such as all PCE instances must be in a single site,
      which is not acceptable. We require a more robust handling and
      using PCEP is helpful and simple.
      Jon: You think it is not possible with DB sync with a back-end
      DB.
      Stephane:  Theoretically yes, but practically there are limitation
      and clustering solution works well at same site and has 10-15 ms
      latency which cannot be made to work across multiple sites.

   <Meeting adorned, See you in London>