Re: [Pce] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-07

2018-01-15 Thread Jonathan Hardwick 
Hi Daniele

Many thanks for the review.  Please see my replies below in  … .

Best regards
Jon


From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccare...@ericsson.com]
Sent: 10 January 2018 10:41
To:  (rtg-...@ietf.org) 
Cc: rtg-...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type@ietf.org
Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-07


Hello,



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The 
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as 
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special 
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. 
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir



Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would 
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call 
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by 
updating the draft.



Document: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-07

Reviewer: Daniele Ceccarelli

Review Date: 2018-01-10

IETF LC End Date: date-if-known

Intended Status: Standards Track



Summary:

I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved 
before publication.



Comments:

The draft is a bit confusing on some aspects. I had to read it again a couple 
of times to understand that 2 TLVs are defined (probably my fault). If you 
could make it clearer in the intro that 2 TLVs are defined each of which with a 
precise scope, that would make things easier.



 How about I add the following in between the second and third paragraphs 
of the introduction?



NEW
   So far, PCEP and its extensions have assumed that the TE paths are
   label switched and are established via the RSVP-TE protocol.
   However, other methods of LSP setup are possible in the PCE
   architecture (see [RFC4655] and [RFC4657]).  This document generalizes
   PCEP to allow other LSP setup methods to be used.  It defines two new
   TLVs, as follows.
  -  The PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, which allows a PCEP speaker to
  announce which LSP setup methods it supports.
  -  The PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, which allows a PCEP speaker to specify
  which setup method should be used for a given LSP.

END NEW



I’ll then tweak the remaining paragraphs in the introduction to fit in with 
this preamble.  Does that sound OK?





Also the list of the PSTs is a bit confusing. Since each PST is a byte field 
why don’t you adopt and encoding like the one used in RFC7138 section 4.1.1. 
for the muxing stages? You could encode the PST values like the Stage#1…Stage# 
below.


   0   1   2   3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Type = 1 (Unres-fix)   | Length|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Signal Type  | Num of stages |T|S| TSG | Res |Priority   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Stage#1|  ...  |   Stage#N |Padding|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Unreserved ODUj at Prio 0| . |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Unreserved ODUj at Prio 7| Unreserved Padding|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Figure 3: Bandwidth Sub-TLV -- Type 1



 The PST encoding is like the example you quoted i.e. a list of bytes 
padded with zeros plus a field saying how many PSTs are in the list.  If I 
re-draw the diagram like this, does it look better to you?


   0   1   2   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |   Type (TBD1) | Length|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |   Reserved|  Num of PSTs  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  | PST#1 |  ...  | PST#N |Padding|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |   |
  //   Optional sub-TLVs (variable)  //
  |   |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 Figure 1: PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV







Major Issues:

No major issues found.



Minor Issues:

  *   Section 3:

[Pce] IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing

2018-01-15 Thread Julien Meuric 
Dear authors of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing,

Could you please send an email to the PCE mailing list saying whether
you are aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing
and, if so, if it has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules?
(See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details.)  If you are not
aware of any IPR that applies, please reply saying "I am not aware of
any IPR that applies to this draft".

A reply is required from each of you before we can proceed.

Thanks,

Julien

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

[Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11

2018-01-15 Thread Julien Meuric 
Dear PCE WG,

Best wishes for this new year, full of interoperable specifications. Let
us begin by resuming our work in progress.

This message starts a 2-week WG last call for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11. Please send your feedback on the I-D
to the PCE mailing list by Monday January 29.

Regards,

Jon & Julien

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