Minutes for PCE at IETF-94
minutes-94-pce-1

PCE Working Group Meeting Tuesday, November 3, 2015; 5:10-6:40 PM

PCE Chairs: Julien, Jon, JP (in absentia)
Meeting Minutes by Dhruv Dhody

Audio: http://ietf.org/audio/ietf94/ietf94-room501-20151103-1710.mp3
Meetecho: http://recs.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/watch.jsp?recording=IETF94_PCE&chapter=chapter_1

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

    * Welcome Jon as new co-chair!
    * Please try to get traction on the mailing list before requesting
      agenda.
    * Milestone update / re-charter in near future

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

    * Fatai Zhang: (For inter-layer) stable for long time, depends on
      GMPLS extn draft
    * Jonathan Hardwick: Just keep alive and we can go after GMPLS
    ---
    * Dan King: (for inter-area-as) Ready, (1) Need review (2) Should we
      include new work and make it becomes a living document
    * Jon: Not to have a living document
    * Dhruv Dhody volunteered to review
    ---
    * PCE-DISC-MIB and ENHANCED-ERROR about to be dropped, speak up
      if you care about this work
    * Please ask for early allocation only if your document is mature.
    ---
    * Dan (for H-PCE): There are 2 implementation (one on github) new
      version of document to be out soon, and check if it should be
      kept experimental.
    ---
    * Xian Zhang: (for GMPLS-initiated) Will update by next IETF.

2. Work in Progress
2.1. PCEP Extension for Association (Ina Minei/Xian Zhang, 10 min) [35/90]
draft-minei-pce-association-group

    * Cyril Margaria: Value in this work, but not sure about process as
      the dependent work are non WG items
    * Ina: Chicken-and-egg problem
    * Julien: Regarding process if there is interest, we can adopt
      this, there is no issue!
    * Jeff Tantsura: It is important that this gets adopted, dependent
      draft will have implementation soon
    ---
    * Cyril: Association state is tied to PCE-IP address, it is too
      restrictive
    * Ina: But Association must note who created the association, how to
      handle association when that entity die?
    * Cyril: Fine with the encoding, but error procedures need to be
      clarified.
    ---
    * Lou Berger: Will respond when I see the mailing list that
      comments related to association encoding
    ---
    * Julien: <adoption call, good support, take to the list>

2.2. BGP-LS Extension for PCE Discovery (Jie Dong, 5 min) [40/90]
draft-dong-pce-discovery-proto-bgp

    * Adrian Farrel: Your 2 use-case are good, but 3rd use-case is
      confusing?
    * Jie Dong: The PCC may not be a BGP speaker and in that case we
      can use IGP discovery.
    * Adrian Farrel: That is an 'importing' information of node that is
      not even in the IGP network. This is interesting.
    * Jie Dong: How is this importing done in IGP is out of scope but
      part of the solution.
    * Julien: The use-case/requirements and code-points needs to be
      clarify and improved.

2.3. Auto-Bandwidth (Rakesh Gandhi, 10 min) [50/90]
draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth

    * Julien: Follow RFC7120 for early allocation, should be consensus
      and it is not stable yet.
    * Loa Anderson: Early allocation is based on stability of IANA
      allocation part and not the entire specification.
    * Julien:
    * Rakesh Gandhi: We need early allocation for all TLVs
    * Julien: Not sure if we have enough support.
    * Dhruv: Can we poll anyway?
    * Julien: <show of hands on how many have read/support documents -
      15 read, almost all interested by the topic>
    * Jon: Please send to the list if you agree with work on the list
      with comments, silence on mailing list is harder to judge
      consensus.
    * Julien: Make sure that proposal will scale in large networks
    * Rakesh: Various scalability issues are handled in the current
      document. One criteria for adoption is to look into, if it is a
      problem that WG needs to work on.

2.4. Possible Follow-up on PCE-CC Proposal (Adrian Farrel, 15 min) [65/90]

    * Ina: Another function would be to use PCEP to get state from the
      network
    * Adrian: Yes, PCEP-LS is another such function
    * Julien: on agenda, will be discussed then
    ---
    * Lou: Where do you want to go with this with presentation?
    * Adrian: WG should make consensus decision about it
    * Lou: During re-organization, we decided that architecture should
      be done in TEAS. I support notion that not to do things ad-hoc,
      lets repeat discussion in TEAS WG
    * Adrian: Strike the WG in the slide, add IETF!
    ---
    * Ina: Thanks for bringing this up, it is better if there is a
      standardized way of doing this rather than doing proprietary
      stuff to fill these gaps
    ---
    * Danielle Ciccarelli: I agree that the 1st functionality is not
      needed for ACTN, but why do you think the 2nd is not needed?
    * Adrian: I dont think ACTN motivates these functions, ACTN might
      use these
    * Danielle: Agreed
    ---
    * Lou: In your opinion, are these function needed?
    * Adrian: The 2nd one is needed. The 1st one I remained to be
      convinced. In SDN model, I remained to be convinced that PCEP
      should be used as SBI, but I can see that it can be used as SBI.
      Deployment/implementations support will convince me.
    * Lou: From protocol perspective, is there zero work to do it?
    * Adrian: Yes, but is it sane to do this?
    ---
    * Sergio Belliotti: What is the intention for this presentation?
    * Adrian: No agenda, I am drawing attention to these draft, discuss
      the function and decide if we should have them.
    * Julien: There are two many use-case documents these days, we can
      sometimes aim for protocol specifications directly.
    * Lou: Send the functions to TEAS, protocol implementation in PCEP.
    ---
    * Chao Zhou(Cisco): Based on my talk with customers, the
      downloading speed of OF and NetConf is not meeting the
      customers requirements and perhaps PCEP is the answer.

3. I-Ds not Discussed
3.1. LSP Policies (Jeff Tantsura, 5 min) [70/90]
draft-sivabalan-pce-policy-identifier


    * Dhruv: Real use-case, in current version you are not using
      ASSOCIATION object, there is another document about attribute
      association, we can work together and move towards common
      mechanism.
    * Jeff: Absolutely
    ---
    * Cyril: Is there a Yang model for it?
    * Jeff: There needs to be an abstracted view of policy and an pointer
      to it.
    * Robin: There are lot of IDs proposed, there is policy ID,
      association ID, in IDR there is path ID, redirection ID...
      Can we unify this via a common name with an ID/Type?
    * Jeff: Ack, we can discuss with them
    ----
    * Sergio: Do you provide a mechanism to map the policy with the
      policy-ID?
    * Jeff: Policy is defined independently

3.2. RSVP-TE Local Protection (Cyril Margaria, 5 min) [75/90]
draft-cbrt-pce-stateful-local-protection

    * Rakesh: Who computes the merge-point label?
    * Cyril: Will discuss with authors
    * Robin: This draft just creates association between primary and
      bypass, Label/ERO should all be done by PCC
    * Jon: More text on procedures are needed

3.3. PCEP Extension for TE Distribution (Dhruv Dhody, 10 min) [85/90]
draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls
draft-kondreddy-pce-pcep-ls-sync-optimizations
draft-wu-pce-pcep-ls-sr-extension

    * <No comments on mic>

3.4. PCE-Initiated IP Tunnel (Xia Chen, 5 min) [90/90]
draft-chen-pce-pce-initiated-ip-tunnel

    * <No comments on mic>

--Meeting adjourned--