Minutes IETF103: pce
minutes-103-pce-00

PCE Working Group Meeting – 13:50-15:50 Monday Afternoon session I 5th Nov 2018

   o Chairs: Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Meuric (remote)
   o Secretery: Dhruv Dhody
   o Slide - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/session/pce
   o Etherpad -http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-103-pce?useMonospaceFont=true
   o Meetecho:  http://www.meetecho.com/ietf103/pce

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

Jon is standing down as WG co-chair.
Thank You Jon for your service!

1.2. WG Status (chairs, 20 min) [25/120]
Daniel King: [draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability] Will be posting it
             soon.
             [draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions] Already posted. Will respond
             to Adrian comments on the list.
Jonathan Hardwick: [draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp] Will finish shephered
                   review soon.
                   [draft-ietf-pce-association-group] Was updated, waiting to be
                   shepherded.
                   4 drafts ready to be WGLC
Adrian Farrel: [draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec] Almost ready, implementers speak
               up!
Haomian Zheng: [draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors] Made an update to align with
               other PCEP extension, error handling requirement for future
               extension is added.
Jonathan: Please take a look at this, if you have a dependent I-D.
Dhruv Dhody: [draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity, …-policy] No update, we are
             waiting for association group to move.
             [draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang] Update made and asked for an early yang
             doctor review, and received some comments on the list, will
             addrress them together.
             [draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling] No update, and we
             would like more reviews.
             [draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request] No update, simple extension,
             basically ready.
             [draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection] Waiting for association
             group.
Young Lee: [draft-leedhody-pce-vn-association] Finished the coordination with
           Igor on specifying the VN association with tunnel bundling.
Jonathan: Please update the text, with help of Igor.
Jonathan: [draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing] We had good interest in the last
          meeting but when we polled only a few responded. So, what happend?
Haomian: The problem could be that the draft took too long time, the content of
         this draft is changed from new object to using association group. It
         was presented with the other association draft.
Jonathan: If the authors can update the I-D, post to the list and solicit
          feedback. Then we can look to poll again.

2. Segment Routing
2.1. Path Segment & bi-directional SR (Cheng Li, 15 min) [40/120]
draft-li-pce-sr-path-segment-03
draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-02

Jonathan: This is interesting work, several use-cases. There is a base draft in
          SPRING, process I propose is - wait for SPRING WG to adopt first and
          then we can do adoption poll in PCE. Regarding early IANA allocation,
          I hear you, but would be easier to wait until the draft is adopted by
          the WG.
Cheng Li: We will post an adoption request in SPRING this week.

2.2. PCEP for SRv6 (Dhruv Dhody, 15 min) [55/120]
draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-03
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-00

Jeff Tentsura: Comment on teminology alignment for max-SL, it should be Depth.
Dhruv: Will align with the ISIS-SRv6 document, as this documents simply re-uses
       it.
Jonathan: Can be considered for adoption, there was support the last time it was
          presented.

2.3. Binding Segment (Jeff Tantsura, 10 min) [65/120]
draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-05

Jonathan: It is always good to ask if there is a usecase for a feature before
          adding it in the I-D and try to keep things as simple as possible. Get
          feedback on the mailing list.
[Poll]
How many have read? 7-8
Suitable to be adopted? 6-7
Jeff: Would mail the questions on the mailing list, while adoption is being
      worked out.

3. Optical
3.1. PCEP for Flex-Grid (Young Lee, 10 min) [75/120]
draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid-03

Jonathan: The GMPLS work is polished and the market is moving towards Flex-Grid,
          so this is timely.
[Poll]
How many have read? about 15
Suitable to be adopted? about 15
Jonathan: Good, the next step is to take the poll to the list.

4. PCE as a Central Controller
4.1. PCECC Extensions for P2MP/SRv6 (Dhruv Dhody, 15 min) [90/120]
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-p2mp-00
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-00

Jonathan: Regarding basic PCECC Mode, how is the PCC's label space delegated to
          the PCE?
Dhruv: MPLS Label Management was marked out-of-scope in the base PCECC, it could
       be done out of band (yang) or in-band via PCEP (there is another draft
       that was presented during IETF 102).  Using one of these two methods, the
       PCC gives control of part of its label space to the controller.

5. Other Topics
5.1. Multi-Layer Association (Quan Xiong, 10 min) [100/120]
draft-xiong-pce-multilayer-lsp-association-02

Dhruv: See RFC5623 (Inter-layer PCE framework), if you use this document as a
       reference it would help clarify your proposal. There is a use case if you
       can clearly identify where this association is useful at which PCE.
Jonathan: Makes more sense at a PCE than a PCC. If the PCC setting up both LSP,
          then the association is already known at PCC but could be reported to
          the PCE. I am not saying the use cases are wrong, but it seems the use
          cases need to be clarified.
Quan Xiong: What are your thoughts on Usecase 3?
Jonathan: I need to think about Use Case 3 more.
Poll:
How many have read? around 7

*Thanks Jon for Chairing!*

------Thats a wrap-----