Jeff, thank you for reviewing Please, see in line Best regards,
[Logo]<https://ribboncommunications.com/> Marina Fizgeer Sr. Manager, Systems Architecture | Ribbon M +972.544860016 Petah Tikva, Israel [Banner]<https://ribboncommunications.com/?_gl=1*6qlbuc*_gcl_au*MjA3NzE5OTk5NC4xNzI4NDE0NDY4*_ga*NTIxNzg1MDgxLjE3Mjg0MTQ0NjM.*_ga_VCEZ9Q3S3Y*MTcyODQ1MjEzMC4yLjEuMTcyODQ1MjE4OS4xLjAuMTA4NjExNTU4> From: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2025 3:24 PM To: Marina Fizgeer <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; pce-chairs <[email protected]>; Dmytro Shypovalov <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-01.txt Marina, A few nits noted while reviewing the diff. The BFD procedure updates addresses my prior comments: §4.3.1: Length is now 4+; by the rules listed, 4*n | n > 1. The PCE experts can comment on whether padding to 4-byte boundaries is consistent with protocol practices. I usually recommend no padding myself.[MF] seems ok and exists in other docs PST is not defined or referenced in this document. By context, it's attempting to provide a mechanism for the speakers to negotiate shared types for their S-BFD session. If this was intended to be the path setup type in the terminology, you have a typo there labeling this PCT. It also looks like this was intended to be a bullet list but had issues in the formatting.[MF] Typo, will fix No procedure is given to suggest preference when more than one is available. Unregistered PSTs causing the session to terminate seems a bit harsh, especially if at least one is negotiated?[MF] will think, maybe you are right and session shall be terminated only if there is not any common PSTs between S-BFD and supported in session. Maybe even here meaning that S-BFD cannot be used for LSP. Will think There should be an IANA section for these PSTs.[MF] will add Typo: speker. -- Jeff On Aug 21, 2025, at 3:23 AM, Marina Fizgeer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, dear colleagues, I published the new version of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters draft. As due date of the previous version was expired, I saw interest in this draft from several sides, I wanted to publish the updated version as soon as possible. I made a lot of changes based on what I received during the adoption of this draft, but not all of them. And I will continue to do so. I also introduced some important changes on our side. The main changes: 1. Add Path Setup Type to S-BFD capability TLV (like as Path Setup Type is defined in rfc8408) – meaning PCE peer supporting of S-BFD per technology * With additional validations and error 1. Correction of multiplier values 2. More accurate (right) definition for Discriminator as optional/MUST sub-TLV use case and error Other changes: 1. Correction and expanding of acronyms 2. Cases of low/upper of key words 3. Some explanation/description changes 4. ……. Best regards, <image001.png><https://ribboncommunications.com> Marina Fizgeer Sr. Manager, Systems Architecture | Ribbon M +972.544860016 Petah Tikva, Israel <image002.png><https://ribboncommunications.com/?_gl=1*6qlbuc*_gcl_au*MjA3NzE5OTk5NC4xNzI4NDE0NDY4*_ga*NTIxNzg1MDgxLjE3Mjg0MTQ0NjM.*_ga_VCEZ9Q3S3Y*MTcyODQ1MjEzMC4yLjEuMTcyODQ1MjE4OS4xLjAuMTA4NjExNTU4> From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 10:04 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-01.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-01.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of the IETF. Title: PCEP Extensions to support BFD parameters Authors: Marina Fizgeer Orly Bachar Name: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-01.txt Pages: 12 Dates: 2025-08-20 Abstract: This document proposes extension to PCEP to configure LSP parameters. Some of LSP parameters are needed to configure S-BFD for candidate paths. Each candidate path is identified in PCEP by its uniquely assigned PLSP-ID. The mechanism proposed in this document is applicable to to all path setup types. This extension can work with ifferent PCEP Path Setup Types but especially suitable for Segment Routing (SR-MPLS, SRv6).. The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters> There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-01.html<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-01.html> A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-01<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-01> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: rsync.ietf.org<http://rsync.ietf.org>::internet-drafts _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Disclaimer This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
