Document: draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy Title: PCEP extensions for SR P2MP Policy Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu Review result: Has Issues
Hi, I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for thisInternet-Draft. Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy/13/ Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu Review Date: 2025-12-05 Intended Status: Standards Track --- Summary: Has Issues Major Issues: The draft doesn't have a section for "Operation Considerations." Section 9 is "Manageabiity Considerations", but with a couple of sub-sections as "TBD". What the document proposed is quite complex. There are many moving parts, such as TE, PTIs, PCE/PCC driving updates, so some operation consideration about state convergence, configurations etc would be helpful. Please include some scalability consideration, especially in terms of number of multicast groups and the sizes of multicast groups. Please add some clarifications on what happens when a partial branch fails, how PCE/PCC detect failures, and how traffic is rerouted etc. The "IANA Considerations" section should match the description text in the previous sections. The document needs an editorial pass. For example: There are Candidate Path/Candidate path/candidate path in the document. Please keep it consistent. Multiple places are missing a period mark "." at the end of a paragraph. Some detailed comments below: 177 engineering criteria and any additional Service Leave Agreements 178 (SLAs) that is used to construct the tree. s/Service Leave Agreements/Service Level Agreements 248 similar concept as draft [draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]. The reference needs to be updated to RFC 9862. There are multiple instances in the document. 265 PCE MAY also calculate and download additional information for the 266 replication segments, such as protections next-hops for link 267 protection. s/protections next-hops/alternative next-hops? 289 optimization of a CP with in a SR P2MP policy. Each CP can have s/with in/within 291 There are used for Make Before Break (MBB) and global optimization 292 procedures. This sentence doesn't parse. 315 It should be noted that the [draft-hb-spring-sr-p2mp-policy-yang] can 316 provide further details of the high level P2MP Policy Model. I'd suggest removing referece to this old and expired document. 416 With varying encoding rules for the SR-P2MP-LSP- IDENTIFIER TLV which s/SR-P2MP-LSP- IDENTIFIER TLV/SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV 422 identify a cross connect. A cross connect is a incoming SID and set s/a incoming/an incoming 424 CCI objects contains the incoming SID and the outgoing interfaces s/contains/contain 470 * PCE then sends a PCUpdate to the Root node indicating the 471 association information (CP) and implicitly binds the CP to the 472 installed CCI information. 501 - PCE will then send a PCUpdate to the root indicating the 502 association information (Candidate path) , and implicitly 503 indicate it to bind to the latest CCI information downloaded. These two steps are identical. Should the descripton also be the same? 513 Transit, Bud and Leaf nodes in the SR P2MP Tree using a PcInitiate s/PcInitiate/PCInitiate. There are multiple instances in the document, such as line 529 and 533. 516 * - PLSP-ID: value MUST be set to zero and will be assigned by PCC. For PCC-Init procedure, Root sends PLSP-ID to PCE, why MUST it be set to zero in PCInitiate message? 559 PCUpd message. Association object MUST be present forCP PCUpdate s/forCP/for CP 594 To remove a single CP, PCE sends PC Initiate message s/PC Initiate/a PCInitiate Section 4.3.3.4 Q: If there are multiple CPs in one SR P2MP policy, does the sequence of removing each CP matter when removing the policy? Section 4.3.4 Q: what if the CP already has to PTIs? shall the 2nd PTI (not active) be removed first? 628 The transit and leaf nodes SHOULD be able to accept traffic from both 629 PTIs to minimize the traffic outage by the Make Before Break process. Q: If there is a new node added to the network, it's possible that the existing active PTI forms a loop. Is this considered? 665 interface is down. There can be 2 method to protect the primary 666 interface. s/2 methond/two methods Section 4.3. 6For the two protection methods in Figure 1, please consider adding a comparison of advantages/disadvantages of each method. 713 The SR P2MP Policy and its Replication segment can be delete by the 714 PCC or by the PCE. to delete the SR P2MP Policy all the CP associated s/delete/deleted s/to/To 730 For PCC to delete a CP, Root send a PCRpt message with the R bit of 731 the LSP object set and all the fields of the SR-P2MP- LSP-ID TLV set s/send/sends s/SR-P2MP- LSP-ID/SR-P2MP-LSPID-TLV 739 For PCC to delete a PTI, Root send a PCRpt message with the R bit of 740 the LSP object set and all the fields of the SR-P2MP- LSP-ID TLV set Same as above. 750 4.3.8.2. PCE Initiated 579 4.3.3.4. Conveying active state and cleanup These two sections are partially duplicates. 756 4.3.9. Fragmentation Is this section needed? it doesn't seems to define anything new. However the document should add some operation considerations when there are fragmentations and how to ensure fragmentations are handled consistently. 996 SHOULD BE ignored if present. s/SHOULD BE/SHOULD be 1155 (Add/Remove/Replace-all), the PcRpt and PcInit messages are extended s/PcRpt and PcInit/PCRpt and PCInitiate 1227 Instance-ID to identify a PTI with in the CP. s/with in/within Section 5.7.2 Q: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects has an early allocation of object-type value 3. Am I missing something here? Thanks, Yingzhen _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
