Hi Ina, On 11/5/2015 6:42 PM, Ina Minei wrote: > Cyril, > > Thank you for the review and discussion, please see inline ###. > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Cyril Margaria > <cyril.marga...@gmail.com <mailto:cyril.marga...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > My comments on the document are: > > > 1) The format goes in the good,direction, but is not yet fully > aligned with rfc6780, is this planned for a future revision? > > > ### Yes, as we discussed with Loa at the IETF, we are changing the > format, a new version of the document will be published next week. > Loa = Lou = me, right?
To summarize, the changes are basically to: 1) Add the two optional 'extended' parameters introduced in rfc6780 as optional sub-TLVs 2) change the field sizes to the same as rfc6780 3) to change the association source to be the same as 6780 We also discussed the R bit and I didn't have any objection to it (but also don't see it as significant either way.) Thanks for the easy resolution! Lou > 2) My concern is the following statements: > > "For both > cases, the association is uniquely identified by the combination of > an association identifier and the address of the PCE peer that > created the association." > > "Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes - An IPv4 or IPv6 address, which is > associated to the PCE peer that originated the association." > > Those statement are not aligned with the RSVP association is managed. > The reason stated is that the association state is tied to that PCE. > > Is this related to the fact that about any PCC/PCE can create association > on a LSP? > > ### Same as above > > > 3) Association control : the PCC and any PCE can create associations: > this diverge from the existing mechanism from the statefull document. > In my opinion this aspect makes the control and state maintenance > more complicated. The use cases behind this multiple-controller > model is not very clear. > > If the association is under the control a single entity (PCC or > PCE), as in the stateful document, the association state then > become part of the PCE state and the rules described in the > stateful document applies (it up to the PCE who as delegation to > set the association. > > This would also allow to get rid of the R bit, as mentioned by > adrian (to remove an association: simply not send it) > > > ### I disagree, the ability to have either create an association and > allocate an identifier was a key requirement (you may recall that > version 00 only allowed the PCE to create such associations, and we > received a lot of feedback asking to lift this limitation). > > > Which use cases will not be permitted by that mode of operation? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
