Stephane, I prefer the second option i.e. "Controller/PCE". However it maybe cumbersome to read this frequently in the documents, so I think we should use "Controller" and describe PCE as an example. I will edit both of the drafts for this change.
Regards, Rishabh On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:33 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > (Adding PIM chairs so they are informed) > > > > Hi Rishabh, > > > > I discussed offline with PCE chairs, and they agree that it’s better to > use “Controller” or “Controller/PCE” as PCE notion is tied now to PCEP > protocol. > > Likely the PIM draft needs to be updated too. > > > > Brgds, > > > > Stephane > > > > > > > > *From:* Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, June 27, 2025 6:55 PM > *To:* Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* [bess] Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp > > > > Stephane, > > > > Inline @ [RP] > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:01 AM Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <slitkows= > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi authors, > > > > Please find below my chair/shepherd’s review of > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp. > > > > > > Introduction: > > > > - “A SR P2MP tree is defined by a SR P2MP Policy and instantiated via > a PCE” > > > - I would use the name controller instead of PCE. PCE is really tied > to PCEP protocol IMO. If we agree, then you should change it across the > doc. I appears in other sections too. > > > > [RP] This draft is based on the PIM WG SR P2MP policy draft > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy/ which > describes use of PCE to compute P2MP trees. Section 4.4 of that draft > clarifies that various protocols, such as PCEP, BGP etc. can be used > between PCE and PCC. IMO, it is appropriate to use PCE in this draft. > > > > Section 2: > > - “A Replication segment of a SR P2MP tree can be instantiated…” > > > - Shoudln’t you provide informational refs here ? > > > > [RP] The preceding text provides references for both Replication segments > (RFC 9524) SR P2MP tree (draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy). Isn't that > sufficient. > > > > Section 3: > > - I would enhance the tunnel-type description with a list, something > like > > > > “ * Tunnel Type: > > · 0x0c for SR-MPLS P2MP tree > > · TBD for SRv6 P2MP Tree > > “ > > > > Section 3.1.2 > > s/”Domain- wide”/”Domain-wide” (remove space) > > > > > > Section 4.1.1 > > > > Use an XML reference for RFC6514 Section 9.1.1 instead of hardcoding in > text. (same in 4.1.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3.2…). > > > > [RP] These are "external" (eref as described in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7991#section-2.24) references, > which are rendered appropriately as URI links in HTML format and with URI > text in TXT format. > > > > When you refer to “condition (c)”, it’s not clear, where it’s defined. > > > > [RP] Added reference to Section 9.1.1 RFC 6514 > > > > > > > > Section 10 > > > > Please fix last name of Luc Andre (there are two “t” instead of t, it > should be Burdet). > > > > [RP] Fixed. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Stephane > > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
