Hi Samuel!
Many thanks for your detailed answer!
Many thanks to Dhruv and Pavan for all input and discussion.
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, 3. August 2023 at 19:30
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupa...@gmail.com>
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com>,
Marcel Reuter (External) <marcel.reuter.exter...@telefonica.com>, pce@ietf.org
<pce@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org
<draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Pce] Mail regarding draft-ietf-pce-pcep
Hi Pavan,
Please see inline <S>.
Regards,
Samuel
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 4:40 PM
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com>
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com>;
Marcel Reuter (External) <marcel.reuter.exter...@telefonica.com>; pce@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Mail regarding draft-ietf-pce-pcep
Samuel, Hi!
The requirement is to be able to carry "vendor specific information" in the
OPEN message. Some of this information may be relevant for deciding whether the
session should be established or not while some other information may become
relevant only later when processing LSPs (and has no bearing on "opening" the
session). An implementation should be able to use the VENDOR_INFO TLV in the
OPEN object for the former and the VENDOR_INFO Object (marked optional like in
any other message) for the latter. I don't understand why this
usage/flexibility needs to be prohibited.
<S> I don’t think it was explicitly prohibited for vendor info object. It is
inheriting default rules, which are applied for all PCEP objects. RC5440
clearly stated that content of PCEP message is described in BNF – so all
mandatory and optional objects, which can be included are explicitly listed.
Each RFC, which is defining new PCEP object is explicitly specifying where that
PCEP object can be included (PCEP message, ordering,…).
I assume that when RFC7470 introduced vendor info object, there was no valid
use-case for including that PCEP object in Open message, so it was not
explicitly added – same way like it was not added to other PCEP messages. If we
want to allow it now, then logical questions are:
* What has changed since RFC7470? Is there really new use-case which cannot
be covered with existing vendor TLV? If we will allow use only in Open message,
how we will make sure that in 5 months somebody else will not need it in any
other PCEP message?
* How to handle backward compatibility? E.g. what will happen if you will
start including Vendor Info object in Open message, but existing
implementations, which are complaint with all existing RFCs will reject those
Open messages (you need to consider those with support for RFC7470, but also
those without support)? If extension required is for other PCEP messages, then
you we can have capability advertised in Open message to figure out, whether
extension is supported, but since you need to extend PCEP Open message, you
don’t have simple way to figure it out.
* Where such extension should be included? As Dhruv mentioned, logically it
does not belong into stateful vendor info draft, so we have 2 options:
* New draft
* Re-working stateful draft to include this change, rename it,…
That said, if the WG concludes that the "vendor specific information" should
ONLY exist in TLV form in the OPEN message, I would like it to be explicitly
specified somewhere.
<S> As described above – for PCEP objects, it is always explicitly specified
which PCEP object is allowed in which PCEP message. For TLV, RFC7470 is already
saying:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7470.html#section-1
This document also defines a new PCEP TLV, the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV
that can be used to carry arbitrary information within any existing
or future PCEP object that supports TLVs.
…
- Clarification that the TLV is available for use in any PCEP object
(existing or future) that supports TLVs.
But maybe other WG members knows about some other statements, which can still
block it for Open message.
Regards,
-Pavan
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 1:45 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
<ssi...@cisco.com<mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hi Pavan,
Is it possible to specify usecase a bit?
I’m not against allowing Vendor Info object in OPEN message, but I personally
tend to agree with Dhruv’s explanation. In general, PCEP open message is
supposed to exchange/negotiate various capabilities of PCEP peers, timer
values, path-setup-types,… but all of them seems to be related to Open object,
so vendor TLV seems to be sufficient for something like that.
In general, I can see benefit in using PCEP object over PCEP TLV (on top of
logical association with underlaying object) in already defined flags in object
header (P/I flags), which can help if you want to mark that object as
mandatory/optional while TLV is always optional and can be ignored during
parsing. In case of Vendor Info object, I don’t see good reason to mark it as
mandatory, so flags are not adding any extra value. If you will mark vendor
object as mandatory, then you will restrict processing of PCEP messages for
specific LSPs to specific vendor only (logical assumption is that other vendors
will not be able to process vendor object from other vendors), other vendors
will have to reject it (if you want to do that, then you don’t need any
standardization at all as you can use any private format).
So is there really any reason to use vendor info object instead of vendor TLV,
which should be already allowed?
For argument about consistency – would it be really consistent even after that
change? My understanding (but others can correct me) that TLVs can be included
in a lot of PCEP objects (still probably not all as some objects are specifying
explicitly that optional TLVs can be included, but some PCEP objects have fixed
length) and all PCEP messages, where PCEP objects with optional TLVs can be
included. But including any PCEP object MUST be explicitly allowed - including
potential expected ordering of objects in that PCEP message (considering
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-object-order).
Thanks,
Samuel
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupa...@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupa...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 7:01 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com<mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com>>; Marcel
Reuter (External)
<marcel.reuter.exter...@telefonica.com<mailto:marcel.reuter.exter...@telefonica.com>>;
pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>;
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Mail regarding draft-ietf-pce-pcep
I'm asking for the usage of the VENDOR_INFORMATION object to be allowed in the
OPEN message (and not in notification, close and any other message where it is
not already included). I would let the WG decide if it needs to be part of
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor (case can be made to include it) or be
discussed separately.
Regards,
-Pavan
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 9:45 PM Dhruv Dhody
<d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote:
Hi Pavan,
In my personal opinion, the vendor TLV makes sense when the TLV is associated
with an existing PCEP Object (and it allows optional TLV) and the vendor Object
for something new! I would mostly consider anything sent in Open message to be
related to existing OPEN object :)
Just to be clear, do you want this for OPEN message only or ALL PCEP messages
(that would additionally include notification and close message as well)? If we
go this route, we may need to change the name of the draft as it is no longer
just stateful!
Thanks!
Dhruv (no hats)
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 10:19 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<vishnupa...@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Please see inline..
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 7:19 PM Dhruv Dhody
<d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote:
Hi Pavan,
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:39 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<vishnupa...@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Marcel, Hi!
Thanks for bringing this to the list! I interpret the text in RFC5440 regarding
"one OPEN object" to just mean that the Open Message cannot carry more than one
"OPEN" object.
Dhruv, Hi!
I would propose updating draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor to explicitly allow
the use of the "VENDOR-INFORMATION" object in the Open message. For example,
implementations may choose to carry "versioning" information in this object
during the Open message exchange (this information may or may not have any
impact on the establishment of the PCEP session). As you mentioned, carrying
the "VENDOR-INFORMATION" TLV in the Open Object is already allowed. I don't see
any good reason to preclude the use of the "VENDOR-INFORMATION" object in the
Open message.
Hmm, with that reasoning do we need to do that for all PCEP messages?
[VPB] It is hard to envision what proprietary use-case someone may come up
with. But allowing the VENDOR-INFORMATION usage in Open message along with
PCReq, PCReply, PCRpt, PCUpd and PCInitiate messages seems reasonable to me.
Also, is there anything that cannot be achieved via the TLV, and you would need
the Object in the Open message case? Just wondering...
[VPB] You can achieve everything by using just the Object or just the TLV (this
is true for other messages as well). I'm advocating a consistent semantic --
allow for the use of both VENDOR-INFORMATION object and TLV in all the
aforementioned messages.
Thanks!
Dhruv
Regards,
-Pavan
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 6:51 PM Dhruv Dhody
<dhruv.i...@gmail.com<mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Marcel,
Welcome, please consider joining the PCE mailing list so that we don't have to
manually approve your email to the list -
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
See inline...
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 8:11 AM Marcel Reuter (External)
<marcel.reuter.exter...@telefonica.com<mailto:marcel.reuter.exter...@telefonica.com>>
wrote:
Aloha,
dear colleagues!
This is my very first E-mail ever to IETF.
So please forgive me, if I dont follow all rules.
I have a question about the RFC5440
Section 6-2
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5440.html#section-6.2
The RFC says:
6.2. Open Message
...
The format of an Open message is as follows:
<Open Message>::= <Common Header>
<OPEN>
The Open message MUST contain exactly one OPEN object (see
Section 7.3).
Unfortunately, Im not very firm in BNF syntax
My question here is to understand the last sentence.
Is it allowed, just from a pure protocol standpoint,
to send in the open message
1 (one) open object
AND also
1(one) VENDOR-INFORMATION object with the P-flag not set?
We are an operator and using PCE from one vendor and router from different
other vendors and have currently some interesting discussing about that topic
RFC 7470 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7470/) added a VENDOR-INFORMATION
Object for PCReq and PCRep messages!
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor/ addes the
same for PCRpt and PCUpd messages!
We have not specified the use of the Object within the Open message!
If there is a need to carry vendor specific information, then using the
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV within the Open object is allowed.
In case they have a need for the object within the Open message, please provide
a usecase and perhaps it can be added in the draft!
Hope this helps!
Thanks!
Dhruv
Thanks a lot
Marcel
:-)
VG
Marcel Reuter
--
Marcel Reuter
Im Auftrag der Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
Überseering 33a
22297 Hamburg
marcel.reuter.exter...@telefonica.com<mailto:marcel.reuter.exter...@telefonica.com>
________________________________
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is confidential and privileged
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização
pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem
por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e
proceda a sua destruição
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
________________________________
Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
The information contained in this transmission is confidential and privileged
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error and then delete it.
Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização
pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem
por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e
proceda a sua destruição
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
