Re-sending to the correct DL :) From: Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 12 November 2017 12:02 To: 'draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org' <draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org> Cc: 'pce@ietf.org' <pce@ietf.org>; pce-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoints
Hi there I am the document shepherd for this draft. Please find my review of the draft below. Many thanks for writing this draft. It looks in good shape overall. There are just a few clarifications I would like to make before we forward it to the IESG for publication. Cheers Jon Abstract This sentence about new sub-registries is misleading - the allocation policy for new sub-registries is decided by the drafts that create the sub-registries and does not have to be IETF Review. I propose: OLD IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Review. NEW IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. END Introduction OLD The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. NEW The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. END i.e. add reference to RFC 5440. The second paragraph is superfluous - I suggest deleting: Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. Please apply the same comments I made for the abstract to the following text: OLD IANA established a new top- level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Review as described in [RFC8126]. NEW IANA established a top- level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. END Suggested change for clarity: OLD With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. NEW Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. END Section 5 The following paragraph does not tell the whole story. A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised experimental object - it is inconsistent that you don't cover these cases. (FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.) Also: s/PCE error message/PCErr message/ Section 7 Nit: add comma after "accidentally" Appendix A I think the text in this Appendix could be clearer. Here is my suggestion. OLD Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus only on the essentials in the scope of this documents. For others, Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead. NEW Based on feedback from the PCE WG, it was decided to allocate an Experimental code point range only in the message, object and TLV sub-registries. The justification for this decision is that, if an experiment finds that it wants to use a new code point in another PCEP sub-registry, it can implement the same function using a new experimental object or TLV instead. END Other Please update reference draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce -> RFC 8231 Please update reference draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10 -> draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
