[Pce] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06
Hariharan Ananthakrishnan has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06 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-lsp-control-request/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05
Hi Hari, Thanks for the review, comments are fixed and new version is uploaded. Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06 Regards, Mahendra From: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan [mailto:h...@netflix.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 7:09 AM To: pce@ietf.org; ar2...@att.com; ag6...@att.com; jakar...@cisco.com; Siva Sivabalan (msiva) ; Mahendra Singh Negi Subject: Re: Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05 + Authors. On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:31 PM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan mailto:h...@netflix.com>> wrote: --- Header: In general should we use "Stateful PCE" or "stateful PCE" ? I see in RFC 8231 we use "Stateful PCE" OLD: Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) NEW: Ability for a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Abstract: OLD: A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) NEW: A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) - Section 4: To make it more clear, it would be good to state that C and D flags are mutually exclusive in PCUpd message. OLD: The PCE SHOULD NOT send control request for LSP which is already delegated to the PCE, i.e. if the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag SHOULD NOT be set. NEW: The D Flag and C Flag are mutually exclusive in PCUpd message. The PCE SHOULD NOT send control request for LSP which is already delegated to thePCE, i.e. if the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag SHOULD NOT be set. -- I dont see Adrian's suggestion being implemented in Section 8 in the latest draft. It would be good to have this apart from the Security Considerations. SUGGESTED: Not sure whether it belongs in 8.1 or 8.3 or 7... The Security considerations section suggests dropping delegation requests if the PCC is swamped. I think you need to configure the threshold for swamping, and to recommend that the issue be logged. IMPLEMENTED: - Thanks, Hari ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06.txt
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 : Ability for a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to request and obtain control of a Label Switched Path (LSP) Authors : Aswatnarayan Raghuram Al Goddard Jay Karthik Siva Sivabalan Mahendra Singh Negi Filename: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06.txt Pages : 12 Date: 2019-06-25 Abstract: A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) retains information about the placement of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). When a PCE has stateful control over LSPs it may send indications to LSP head-ends to modify the attributes (especially the paths) of the LSPs. A Path Computation Client (PCC) has set up LSPs under local configuration may delegate control of those LSPs to a stateful PCE. There are use-cases in which a stateful PCE may wish to obtain control of locally configured LSPs of which it is aware but that have not been delegated to the PCE. This document describes an extension to the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable a PCE to make such requests. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06 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
