Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis

From: "Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 08:27:13 +0000

Hi Pavan,
"yes/support"

Thanks
Sergio

From: Teas <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7:39 PM
To: TEAS WG <[email-masked]>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis

All,

This is start of a two week poll on making
draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis-11 a TEAS working group document.
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd
like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.

The poll ends June 30th.

Thanks,
Pavan

---

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 06:25:37 -0500

All,
    The WG poll is closed.

Authors,
    Please republish draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis-11 as
draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-00 with only the date and file name changed.

Please continue to discuss the questions regarding Section-1.2 on the list
(post adoption) and bring it to closure.

Thanks to everyone in the DT who was instrumental in getting this
much-needed draft to this stage.

- Pavan

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:18:25 +0100

Hi again Pavan,

I posted the -00 version of the WG draft.
Sorry, I forgot to include the "replaces" information. Would you mind adding
it?

I have a -01 in my edit buffer with the change to 4.1.3, and I have added a
section to collect changes from the RFC version.

I hope the WG will discuss the "what is TE?" question more deeply.

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 30 June 2020 15:45
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email-masked]>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[email-masked]>; TEAS WG <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis

Hi,
Thanks to Adrian & DT for this work!

I wanted to do a substantial review of the I-D but it looks like that
has to wait for a later date :)

I managed to skim through it focusing on the changes and caught
nothing that should impede the adoption of this work.
I would have liked to see a section listing changes since RFC 3272
(but not sure how practical that is).
The diff-tool [1] was somewhat useful.

Two random points -
=
- Query: In section 1.2 -

   The key elements required in any TE solution are:

   1.  Policy
   2.  Path steering
   3.  Resource management

Does that mean any solution that just does 1 and 2 and doesn't do 3 is
not TE? Would SR-Policy and BIER-Tree engineering fall under that?
Note that we have SR-MPLS covered (rightfully so) in Section 4.1.14
under IETF techniques. I am wondering if partial-TE is a thing?
=
- Section 4.1.3, this needs to be updated -

   A number of IETF working groups have been engaged in activities
   related to the RSVP protocol.  These include the original RSVP
   working group, the MPLS working group, the Resource Allocation
   Protocol working group, and the Policy Framework working group.
=

Thanks!
Dhruv

[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=rfc3272&url2=draft-dt
-teas-rfc3272bis-11

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:09 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas