Hi Alvaro, Thank you for your comments! Please find the diff and the responses in line below. Thank you!
Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-13.txt > -----Original Message----- > From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 2:28 AM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-control...@ietf.org; > pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; Julien Meuric > <julien.meu...@orange.com> > Subject: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: (with COMMENT) > > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-contr > oller/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > (0) The fact that the procedures (§5) are presented before introducing the > messages/objects (§6-7) makes reading this document harder and more > complex than it has to be. Consider changing the order or at least adding > forward references in §5. Forward references are added. > > (1) §5.2: Is there a reason for the messages from rfc8231 to be in > parenthesis? No, removed parenthesis! > > (2) §5.4: > > The PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be used without the > corresponding Path Setup Type being listed in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE- > CAPABILITY TLV. If it is present without the corresponding Path > Setup Type listed in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, it MUST be > ignored. > > When is it ok to use the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV without the > corresponding PST? If the result is that it will be ignored, then I don't > understand why the use of both is not required. Changed to MUST NOT > > (3) §5.5.1/§5.5.4: "ingress MAY further choose to deploy a data plane check > mechanism and report the status back to the PCE" Is this (checking and > reporting) specified somewhere? Because you're using normative language, > please add a reference. > > A similar statement is made in §5.5.7: "ingress PCC MAY choose to apply any > OAM mechanism to check the status of LSP in the Data plane and MAY > further send its status in a PCRpt message to the PCE". Removed the normative language and added "The exact mechanism is out of scope of this document."! > > (4) §5.5.3: s/central controller instructions...is done/central controller > instructions...are done Updated > > (5) §5.5.8: "The PCC SHOULD allocate the Label and SHOULD report to the > PCE > using the PCRpt message." When is it ok for the PCC to not allocate > and/or > report? IOW, why are these actions only recommended and not required? > Note that the very next paragraph requires the behavior. Updated to "The PCC MUST try to allocate the Label and MUST report to the PCE via PCRpt or PCErr message." > > (6) §7.3/§7.3.1: In the out-label case, "it is mandatory to encode the > next-hop information". Should this information point at a directly > connected IP address/interface, or can it point at a remote next-hop (which > may be resolved through a routing protocol)? What if the expected > conditions are not met? I propose to add this text - "The next-hop information encoded in the Address TLVs needs to be a directly connected IP address/interface information. If the PCC is not able to resolve the next-hop information, it MUST reject the CCI and respond with a PCErr message with Error-Type = TBD5 ("PCECC failure") and Error Value = TBD18 ("Invalid next-hop information")." > > Best regards, Shuping _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
