Dhruv,
Thank you for the careful review, please find answers inline. The comments
accepted are already incorporated in what will become version 06 of the draft.
Thank you,
Ina
[snip]
---Sec 2 Terminology:
* There are lots of technical details in this section. IMO this section should
just introduce the terms and point to relevant sections for more details.
[Ina] I think you mean the section on state cleanup - shortened by removing the
cases and the reference on the duration of the timer (these are discussed in
the text)
* State Timeout Interval: 'b)the PCC makes changes to the LSP state' - Do you
mean that PCC takes control of the LSP state and get the LSP state either from
a pre-configured default, or use local CSPF, or stateless/passive-stateful PCE
etc and try to establish this new LSP state using make-before-break? Note the
LSP state may turn out to be same as the one set by the active stateful PCE and
this LSP state should not be flushed even though there is no change in the LSP
state.
[Ina] yes, that is exactly right. I have added this in a subsequent section
* LSP State Database: This definition seems from the point of view of the PCC,
IMHO a more generic definition would be better.
[Ina] Yes, you are right. How about "information about all lsps and their
attributes".
---Sec 5.4 State Synchronization:
A small text may be added to suggest what should happen if PCC has no LSP state
to synchronize. (Send PCRpt, PLSP-ID=0, SYNC=0) to notify sync end to the PCE
which may still be waiting for state synchronization.
[Ina] Ok, done.
---Sec 5.4.1 State Synchronization Avoidance
OLD:
If a
PCC's LSP State Database survived the restart, the PCC will include
the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object and the TLV will contain
the last LSP State Database version sent on an LSP State Report from
the PCC in the previous PCEP session.
NEW:
If a
PCC's LSP State Database survived the restart of a PCEP session, the PCC
will include
the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object and the TLV will contain
the latest LSP State Database version sent on an LSP State Report from
the PCC in the previous PCEP session.
[Ina] Ok.
PCC should send the latest DB version to the PCE for state synchronization.
---Sec 5.5.4 Redundant Stateful PCEs:
I suggest we use following terminology to avoid confusion, inline with
[ietf-pce-questions-00] as well as other drafts.
Primary or Backup PCE - Where a backup PCE exists to perform functions in the
network, only in the event of a failure of the primary PCE.
Load-Balanced PCE - share the computation load all the time.
This way we could avoid confusion, such as the one mention in Xian's comment.
[Ina] But the text talks about a load-balanced pce where one is also performing
a backup function.
---Sec 6.1 The PCRpt Message
* I also feel SRP should be an optional parameter as PCRpt is also sent without
an update - e.g. passive; initial state sync; delegation; report to other
stateful PCEs (all of them will use SRP-ID=0).
[Ina] If it is made optional, there is no way to ensure that it is present in
the cases when it is needed.
* <path> as defined in [RFC5440] which makes <ERO> as a mandatory object, but
in the first delegated message or for LSP down we will not have any path, in
which case <ERO> should be made optional
* Since PCRpt is also used for a delegation of a LSP which has been configured
at the PCC, i feel <ENDPOINT> object must be a part of PCRpt as an optional
object to tell the source and destination just like PCReq
[Ina] I will discuss these proposals with the co-authors at the upcoming ietf
and get back afterwards.
* 'No state compression is allowed for state reporting (at PCC).' Can you
clarify the intention for this? Do mean to say that for any LSP changes, that
happen at PCC must be sent to PCE but in section 5.6.1 we say 'the PCC may
choose to only send the PCRpt indicating the latest status ('Up' or 'Down').'
[Ina] If you received two requests LSP1 - new bw and LSP1 new path you have to
send two reports, one for each of these operations. If there is one request,
but the lsp goes through multiple phases to arrive there, you can report just
the final phase.
---Sec 6.2 The PCUpd Message
* If stateful PCE cannot setup path or wants to set the LSP state
non-operational/down, there will be no path and hence IMO <ERO> should be
optional here too.
* OLD
A PCC MAY respond with multiple LSP State
Reports to report LSP setup progress of a single LSP. In that case,
the SRP-ID-number MUST be included while the state of the LSP is
"pending", afterwards the reserved value 0x00000000 SHOULD be used..
NEW
A PCC MAY respond with multiple LSP State
Reports to report LSP setup progress of a single LSP. In that case,
the SRP-ID-number MUST be included in the first report message,
afterwards the reserved value 0x00000000 SHOULD be used.
[Ina] Yes, I changed along these lines following Xian's comment
Because PCC may choose to only send the PCRpt indicating the latest status
('Up' or 'Down') [section 5.6.1]
---Sec 6.3 The PCErr Message
* RBNF is needed
[Ina] Good point, thank you for bringing this up.
* Making SRP mandatory for all stateful PCE capable session is unnecessary.
[Ina] Please explain the second point, while bearing in mind that this draft is
for active stateful pce (negotiation of the capability means active stateful,
there is no way to signal passive stateful)
---Sec 7.2 SRP Object
* Is there any role of SRP in make-before-break success / failure cases?
[Ina] Let's say you ask for a reoptimization, but the new path fails because
there is an RSVP setup error. An error must be generated that relates this
failure to the PCupd message that required the optimization.
---Sec 7.4 Optional TLVs for the LSPA Object
A small text for need for TLVs in LSPA object would be useful?
[Ina]Not sure I follow. The lspa object has optional tlvs. The symbolic name
can be added as one of these optional tlvs. Was the question why is the
symbolic name one of the optional tlvs?
----------------------Editorial:
Introduction:
s/Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP./Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP).
Section 5.1
Expand: CLI
Section 5.3
s/(PCE pr PCC)/(PCE or PCC)
Sec 5.4
Figure 3: Successful state synchronization - the (Sync done) marker is at the
wrong place.
Sec 5.4.1
OLD:
Note that a PCE MAY force State Synchronization by not including the
LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object.
NEW:
Note that a PCC/PCE MAY force State Synchronization by not including the
LSP-DB-VERSION TLV in its OPEN object.
Sec 5.6.1
s/a single PC Reply/a single PCRep message
Sec 6.2
s/LSP-IDENTIFIERS-TLV or the old path/LSP-IDENTIFIERS-TLV of the old path
Sec 7.2
s/PCEerr messages/PCErr messages
[Ina] Thank you, fixed for all the above
Sec 7.3
5-7 - Reserved: these values MUST be set to 0 on transmission and
MUST be ignored on receipt.
The above description is used for bit, not for values!
[Ina] I don't agree, please see rfc3209 which makes use of plenty of reserved
values
Sec 7.3.5
OLD
Since a PCE does not send LSP updates to a PCC, a PCC should never
encounter this TLV. A PCC SHOULD ignore the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV, were
it to receive one from a PCE.
NEW
Since a PCE does not update DB version, a PCC should never
encounter this TLV. A PCC SHOULD ignore the LSP-DB-VERSION TLV, were
it to receive one from a PCE.
IMO 'send LSP updates' gets confusing with sending of PCUpd update message.
[Ina] Agree, reworded.
Sec 8.5
TUNNEL-ID should be removed
[Ina] - Thank you for catching
*******************************************************************************
Dhruv Dhody, System Architect, Huawei Technologies, Bangalore, India, Ph.
+91-9845062422
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any
use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited
to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons
other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail
in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
