Hi all, I’ve read the latest version and support it’s progression. The text is a clear read.
Share similar comment of Boris’ about Enterprise number – inherited from RFC 7470 -> points to RFC 2578 -> then pointers drop unless you read between the lines that it’s effectively the SNMP OID PEN. Maybe it’s worth having a bit more text for this just to say it’s from the IANA “Private Enterprise Numbers” registry? or a reference to RFC9371? Although an update for RFC7470 to clarify this (can that be a BIS?) is likely better than embedding it in this extension draft. Thanks Andrew From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com> Date: Monday, July 8, 2024 at 5:30 AM To: Boris Hassanov <bhassa...@yahoo.com>, pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Cc: pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-03 CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi Boris, At least my understanding is that: 1) As indicated later in that draft "Different instances of the object can have different Enterprise Numbers" - Enterprise ID can be different, but it can be same as well, so you can decide to include 2 vendor info objects with same Enterprise number if you want as well (e.g. if each of them represent some future standard object with not allocated codepoints and you want to simplify parsing). " if we have big/huge amount of LSPs in that PCRpt message, will we have Vendor Information Object per each object per each LSP?" Correct. Let's use one example - you want to report per LSP statistics in PCEP - since there is no standard object, you can encode it into vendor specific object. If there is 3rd party PCE, then it will just ignore it (because Enterprise ID is not matching). 2) Since format of vendor object/TLV used by each vendor is not published/standardized (this is answering you other question as well), then at least I'm really assuming that in vast majority of cases, vendor objects for multiple different vendors will not be advertised. E.g. Cisco PCC will use vendor info object with cisco enterprise number only. " https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7470.html#section-6.1"; is already even suggesting making advertisement of vendor object configurable, so it can be blocked if 3rd party PCE is used. See also https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-03.html#section-4 - draft is already inheriting all manageability considerations from RFC7470. 3) Enterprise numbers are not PCEP specific. See: https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/ Regards, Samuel -----Original Message----- From: Boris Hassanov <bhassa...@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2024 4:24 PM To: pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Cc: pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-ven...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-03 Hi Dhruv and WG, I read the latest version of draft. Indeed It adds more flexibility to provide vendor-specific information for PCEs using different messages. I support the further work on this draft. But I would like to see the following clarifications: 1) The draft says : "Multiple instances of the object MAY be used on a single PCRpt message.". Does it mean the addition of different Vendor Information objects (with different Enterprise numbers) per each PCEP object in PCRpt ? If I got it correct. if we have big/huge amount of LSPs in that PCRpt message, will we have Vendor Information Object per each object per each LSP? 2) RFC 7470 has section 6.6 Impact on Network Operation which says: " On the other hand, the presence of additional vendor-specific information in PCEP messages may congest the operation of the protocol especially if the PCE does not support the information supplied by the PCC. ". I would like to see some analysis in the draft about potential impact of increasing the amount of Vendor Information objects on network operations too. IMO similar section as in RFC 7470 is needed. 3) RFC 7470 also says: "Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through an IANA registry ". But they are absent so far (at least here: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml ). How can customers which develop their own PCEs or open source PCEs can know the details of that vendor specific information into Vendor Information objects to consider that in their path calculation algos? Will vendors disclose it somehow as their good will or it will be just sort of black box approach? Thank you in advance. SY, Boris On Thursday, July 4, 2024 at 04:18:29 PM GMT+3, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: Hi WG,This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-03.https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-03.htmlPlease indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome.The WG LC will end on Thursday 18 July 2024.A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption.Thanks,Dhruv & Julien _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
