[Pce] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03

2017-11-12 Thread Jonathan Hardwick 
Jonathan Hardwick has requested publication of 
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE 
working group.

Please verify the document's state at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints

2017-11-12 Thread Dhruv Dhody 
Hi Jon,

Thanks for the suggested texts, I have made the update -

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03

Thanks!
Dhruv

From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com]
Sent: 13 November 2017 08:08
To: Dhruv Dhody ; 
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; 'Dhruv Dhody' 
Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints

Hi Dhruv

Thanks for this.  Trimming to the open points:

Introduction

The second paragraph is superfluous - I suggest deleting:

   Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051],

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to

   enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and

   teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.

[[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Because of the comment for handling the unknown experimental 
objects for the stateful PCE messages, I think it is better to continue to keep 
this text. What do you think?

[Jon] Right - OK to leave it.  But then I think these have to become normative 
references.

Section 5

The following paragraph does not tell the whole story.

   A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will
   reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with
   Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described
   in [RFC5440].

If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object 
instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC 
would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised 
experimental object - it is inconsistent that you don't cover these cases.  
(FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. 
Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 
7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.)

[[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Yes. How about I update to this -

   If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with
   the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request
   message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds
   with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not
   supported object" as described in [RFC5440].  Otherwise the object is
   ignored.  In case of stateful PCE messages [RFC8231], the P flag is
   ignored and the unknown object handling is as per the stateful PCE
   extensions.

And let's try to handle the inconsistency in RFC 8231 with an errata perhaps? 
And handle PCE-initiated during AUTH48?

[Jon] I think this is OK, but if we are just going to point the reader at 
RFC8231, then we might as well do the same with RFC5440, rather than duplicate 
its text.  And we should write something that allows for the possibility that 
more message types may be relevant in future.  How about

   If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental object
   then the way it handles this situation depends on the message type.
   For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path Computation Request
   (PCReq) message according to the rules of [RFC5440].  A PCC handles an
   unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) message according to the rules of 
[RFC8231]
   and, in an LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message, according to the rules 
of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].  Any document that adds a new PCEP message
   type must specify how to handle unknown objects on that message.

Note that this last sentence is not an RFC2119 MUST because it defines author 
behaviour, not device behaviour.
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03.txt

2017-11-12 Thread internet-drafts 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.

Title   : Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path 
Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
Authors : Dhruv Dhody
  Daniel King
  Adrian Farrel
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03.txt
Pages   : 7
Date: 2017-11-12

Abstract:
   IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE)
   communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).
   IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints
   and sub-registries.  This top-level registry contains sub-registries
   for PCEP message, object and TLV types.  The allocation policy for
   each of these sub-registries is IETF Review.

   This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies
   for these three registries to mark some of the code points as
   assigned for Experimental Use.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints

2017-11-12 Thread Jonathan Hardwick 
Hi Dhruv

Thanks for this.  Trimming to the open points:

Introduction

The second paragraph is superfluous - I suggest deleting:

   Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051],

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to

   enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and

   teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.

[[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Because of the comment for handling the unknown experimental 
objects for the stateful PCE messages, I think it is better to continue to keep 
this text. What do you think?

[Jon] Right - OK to leave it.  But then I think these have to become normative 
references.

Section 5

The following paragraph does not tell the whole story.

   A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will
   reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with
   Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described
   in [RFC5440].

If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object 
instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC 
would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised 
experimental object - it is inconsistent that you don't cover these cases.  
(FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. 
Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 
7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.)

[[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Yes. How about I update to this -

   If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with
   the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request
   message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds
   with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not
   supported object" as described in [RFC5440].  Otherwise the object is
   ignored.  In case of stateful PCE messages [RFC8231], the P flag is
   ignored and the unknown object handling is as per the stateful PCE
   extensions.

And let's try to handle the inconsistency in RFC 8231 with an errata perhaps? 
And handle PCE-initiated during AUTH48?

[Jon] I think this is OK, but if we are just going to point the reader at 
RFC8231, then we might as well do the same with RFC5440, rather than duplicate 
its text.  And we should write something that allows for the possibility that 
more message types may be relevant in future.  How about

   If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental object
   then the way it handles this situation depends on the message type.
   For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path Computation Request
   (PCReq) message according to the rules of [RFC5440].  A PCC handles an
   unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) message according to the rules of 
[RFC8231]
   and, in an LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message, according to the rules 
of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp].  Any document that adds a new PCEP message
   type must specify how to handle unknown objects on that message.

Note that this last sentence is not an RFC2119 MUST because it defines author 
behaviour, not device behaviour.
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints

2017-11-12 Thread Dhruv Dhody 
Hi Jon,

Thanks for your review. See inline...

From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 12 November 2017 12:04
To: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints

Re-sending to the correct DL :)

From: Jonathan Hardwick
Sent: 12 November 2017 12:02
To: 'draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org' 
>
Cc: 'pce@ietf.org' >; 
pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoints

Hi there

I am the document shepherd for this draft.  Please find my review of the draft 
below.

Many thanks for writing this draft.  It looks in good shape overall.  There are 
just a few clarifications I would like to make before we forward it to the IESG 
for publication.

Cheers
Jon

Abstract

This sentence about new sub-registries is misleading - the allocation policy 
for new sub-registries is decided by the drafts that create the sub-registries 
and does not have to be IETF Review.  I propose:
OLD

   IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP

   codepoints and sub-registries.  The allocation policy for each new

   registry is by IETF Review.
NEW

   IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP

   codepoints and sub-registries.   This top-level registry contains

   sub-registries for PCEP message, object and TLV types.  The

   allocation policy for each of these sub-registries is IETF Review.
END

[[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Ack.

Introduction

OLD

   The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides

   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path

   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
NEW

   The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] provides

   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path

   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
END
i.e. add reference to RFC 5440.

[[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Ack.

The second paragraph is superfluous - I suggest deleting:

   Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051],

   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to

   enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP.

   [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and

   teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.

[[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Because of the comment for handling the unknown experimental 
objects for the stateful PCE messages, I think it is better to continue to keep 
this text. What do you think?

Please apply the same comments I made for the abstract to the following text:
OLD

   IANA established a new top-

   level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries.

   The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Review as

   described in [RFC8126].
NEW

   IANA established a top-

   level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries.

   This top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message,

   object and TLV types.  The allocation policy for each of these

   sub-registries is IETF Review.
END

[[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Ack.

Suggested change for clarity:
OLD

   With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment

   with PCEP.
NEW

   Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which

   has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP.
END

[[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Ack.

Section 5

The following paragraph does not tell the whole story.

   A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will
   reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with
   Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described
   in [RFC5440].

If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object 
instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC 
would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised 
experimental object - it is inconsistent that you don't cover these cases.  
(FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. 
Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 
7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.)

[[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Yes. How about I update to this -

   If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with
   the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request
   message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds
   with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not
   supported object" as described in [RFC5440].  Otherwise the object is
   ignored.  In case of stateful PCE messages [RFC8231], the P flag is
   ignored and the unknown object handling is