[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Cheng Li]

Thank you Dhruv, yes, we have updated the 00 revision, and been working on the 
comments received in the WG adoption call.
Will send the response to the list accordingly ASAP.

Thanks,
Cheng


From: Dhruv Dhody 
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 5:43 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

Hi WG,

The adoption call is concluded and we have a new WG I-D. Thanks to those who 
provided feedback and comments.

Authors,

Please post a -00 version with no content change. Please handle comments 
received in -01 after discussion on the mailing list.

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:09 PM Dhruv Dhody 
mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote:
Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Xuesong Geng]

Hi WG,

I’ve reviewed the document and from my understanding this draft proposes useful 
extension to the PCEP by allowing Path Computation Clients (PCCs) to delegate 
identifier allocation to Path Computation Elements (PCEs). This functionality 
can be beneficial for managing identifiers like MPLS labels or Segment Routing 
(SR) identifiers within a network.
Support adoption for the document of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space.

Best
Xuesong

From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 7:10 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Gyan Mishra]

Dear WG

Sorry for the late reply.

I support WG adoption of this draft and am willing to work on the draft.

Few comments after reviewing the draft.

For SR-MPLS there are two label rangers SRLB and SRGB.  So you may want to
have a label control space TLV with different IANA registry for sub TLV for
SRLB and SRGB.

Similarly for SRV6 Func ID control space TLV maybe have a separate IANA sub
TLV for LIB (Local ID block) and GIB (Global ID block).

IANA registry is not mentioned for BSID label or ID control space TLV.

Also this ID space concept should be applicable to RSVP-TE as well.

Also today a stateful PCE manages the LSP or SRv6 path PCE ERO via PCE
delegation, however does not allocate a new label or sid range to be
distributed to all nodes.  However now this draft manages the service sid
range.  In a SR PCE environment where this new ID capability is advertised,
is there any impact in  distribution of this new ID space to all nodes in
rebuilding the SR forwarding plane state.  This should be added to the
considerations section.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 7:11 AM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
>  draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons -
> Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you
> willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
>
> Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.
>
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> ___
> Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
>
___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi WG,

The adoption call is concluded and we have a new WG I-D. Thanks to
those who provided
feedback and comments.

Authors,

Please post a -00 version with no content change. Please handle comments
received in -01 after discussion on the mailing list.

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 12:09 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
>  draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons -
> Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you
> willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
>
> Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.
>
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
>
___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Wei Wang]

Hi WG,I support the adoption of this draft. It is useful in complex network 
environments.Best Regards,Wei---Original---
From:"Dhruv Dhody"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/ Should this 
draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What 
needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this 
draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. Please respond by Monday 
3rd June 2024. Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks! Dhruv  Julien
___
PCE mailing list
pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Liyan Gong]

Hi WG,

I support this adoption.

This draft provides a way to implement resource allocation in PCE-Initiated.

It is useful for automated management networks.



Best Regards,

Liyan





From: Dhruv Dhody  Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 1:10 PM To: 
pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs  
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org Subject: WG Adoption of 
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16


 


Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for 
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/ Should this 
draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What 
needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this 
draft? Review comments should  be posted to the list. Please respond by Monday 
3rd June 2024. Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks! Dhruv & Julien






___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Samuel Sidor (ssidor)]

Hi Cheng,

Ack, thanks for keeping me informed.

(Small correction to my previous mail: “I assume that those are not changing 
often, so this may be acceptable”)

Regards,
Samuel

From: Cheng Li 
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 2:47 PM
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; 
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ; Dhruv Dhody ; 
pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

Thank you Samuel for your support and comments, we are working on the replies 
to address the comments received in the WG adoption call.
Will need some time, so please expect some delay.  The reply will be sent to 
our mail list next week 

Thanks,
Cheng


From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 2:16 PM
To: 
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org>
Cc: pce-chairs mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>>; Dhruv Dhody 
mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>; 
pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

Hi authors,

I support adoption of this document.

A few comments/questions:

  *   Is there reason to limit applicability of that draft to SR-MPLS/SRv6 
(e.g. in Section 3.2)? I can imagine that for example BSID allocation may be 
applicable to RSVP-TE LSPs as well
  *   Is it really good idea to use TLVs in Open message to exchange ID space?
 *   There is no capability advertised before that TLV is included (and 
there is no way to do it since Open message is 1st message sent in that PCEP 
session), so when PCC is including it, it does not know whether PCE can support 
it or not. If PCE is responding with Keepalive message, it can mean 2 things 
with no simple way to figure out which of them occurred:
*   ID space control procedure was successful
*   PCE does not support that TLV and ignored it completely
 *   If any of those ranges has changed, then PCEP session flap will be 
required (I assume that those are changing often, so this may be acceptable). 
If any other PCEP message is used, which can be sent on already established 
PCEP session, then it can be modified without requiring PCEP session flap. 
Maybe consider using PCNtf or some completely new PCEP message and in such case 
you can even use explicit capability to indicate whether PCEP extensions from 
this draft are supported or not
  *   Does it make sense to define some sub-type of delegated space? For 
example, if PCC included 3 ranges in “LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV”, then there can 
be some registry of types to specify that 1st range is for BSID, 2nd one for 
SRGB or SRLB,… How PCE should know which range is supposed to be used for what 
purpose? (I can imagine that for SRGB, SRLB, it can be derived from complete 
SRGB/SRLB range learned from IGP, but such approach probably cannot be used for 
all ranges).
  *   Maybe consider renaming “Block” field in “LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV” to 
something like “Number of blocks” (see for example PST capability TLV in 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8408.html#section-3) or even potentially drop 
that field completely as number of ranges can be derived from TLV length
  *   In section 6, you pointed out that synchronization mechanism should be 
used if same label ranges were allocated for multiple PCEs, but it would be 
good to specify details how state-sync will solve synchronization issue (if PCC 
is connected to both PCEs, then both PCEs should see already allocated labels 
from PCRpt messages directly from PCC)
  *   One small type in section 1 “This documnet adds t…””

Thanks,
Samuel

From: Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 1:10 PM
To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Cc: pce-chairs mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>>; 
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Cheng Li]

Thank you Samuel for your support and comments, we are working on the replies 
to address the comments received in the WG adoption call.
Will need some time, so please expect some delay.  The reply will be sent to 
our mail list next week 

Thanks,
Cheng


From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) 
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 2:16 PM
To: draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ; Dhruv Dhody ; 
pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

Hi authors,

I support adoption of this document.

A few comments/questions:

  *   Is there reason to limit applicability of that draft to SR-MPLS/SRv6 
(e.g. in Section 3.2)? I can imagine that for example BSID allocation may be 
applicable to RSVP-TE LSPs as well
  *   Is it really good idea to use TLVs in Open message to exchange ID space?
 *   There is no capability advertised before that TLV is included (and 
there is no way to do it since Open message is 1st message sent in that PCEP 
session), so when PCC is including it, it does not know whether PCE can support 
it or not. If PCE is responding with Keepalive message, it can mean 2 things 
with no simple way to figure out which of them occurred:
*   ID space control procedure was successful
*   PCE does not support that TLV and ignored it completely
 *   If any of those ranges has changed, then PCEP session flap will be 
required (I assume that those are changing often, so this may be acceptable). 
If any other PCEP message is used, which can be sent on already established 
PCEP session, then it can be modified without requiring PCEP session flap. 
Maybe consider using PCNtf or some completely new PCEP message and in such case 
you can even use explicit capability to indicate whether PCEP extensions from 
this draft are supported or not
  *   Does it make sense to define some sub-type of delegated space? For 
example, if PCC included 3 ranges in “LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV”, then there can 
be some registry of types to specify that 1st range is for BSID, 2nd one for 
SRGB or SRLB,… How PCE should know which range is supposed to be used for what 
purpose? (I can imagine that for SRGB, SRLB, it can be derived from complete 
SRGB/SRLB range learned from IGP, but such approach probably cannot be used for 
all ranges).
  *   Maybe consider renaming “Block” field in “LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV” to 
something like “Number of blocks” (see for example PST capability TLV in 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8408.html#section-3) or even potentially drop 
that field completely as number of ranges can be derived from TLV length
  *   In section 6, you pointed out that synchronization mechanism should be 
used if same label ranges were allocated for multiple PCEs, but it would be 
good to specify details how state-sync will solve synchronization issue (if PCC 
is connected to both PCEs, then both PCEs should see already allocated labels 
from PCRpt messages directly from PCC)
  *   One small type in section 1 “This documnet adds t…””

Thanks,
Samuel

From: Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 1:10 PM
To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Cc: pce-chairs mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>>; 
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Samuel Sidor (ssidor)]

Hi authors,

I support adoption of this document.

A few comments/questions:

  *   Is there reason to limit applicability of that draft to SR-MPLS/SRv6 
(e.g. in Section 3.2)? I can imagine that for example BSID allocation may be 
applicable to RSVP-TE LSPs as well
  *   Is it really good idea to use TLVs in Open message to exchange ID space?
 *   There is no capability advertised before that TLV is included (and 
there is no way to do it since Open message is 1st message sent in that PCEP 
session), so when PCC is including it, it does not know whether PCE can support 
it or not. If PCE is responding with Keepalive message, it can mean 2 things 
with no simple way to figure out which of them occurred:
*   ID space control procedure was successful
*   PCE does not support that TLV and ignored it completely
 *   If any of those ranges has changed, then PCEP session flap will be 
required (I assume that those are changing often, so this may be acceptable). 
If any other PCEP message is used, which can be sent on already established 
PCEP session, then it can be modified without requiring PCEP session flap. 
Maybe consider using PCNtf or some completely new PCEP message and in such case 
you can even use explicit capability to indicate whether PCEP extensions from 
this draft are supported or not
  *   Does it make sense to define some sub-type of delegated space? For 
example, if PCC included 3 ranges in “LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV”, then there can 
be some registry of types to specify that 1st range is for BSID, 2nd one for 
SRGB or SRLB,… How PCE should know which range is supposed to be used for what 
purpose? (I can imagine that for SRGB, SRLB, it can be derived from complete 
SRGB/SRLB range learned from IGP, but such approach probably cannot be used for 
all ranges).
  *   Maybe consider renaming “Block” field in “LABEL-CONTROL-SPACE TLV” to 
something like “Number of blocks” (see for example PST capability TLV in 
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8408.html#section-3) or even potentially drop 
that field completely as number of ranges can be derived from TLV length
  *   In section 6, you pointed out that synchronization mechanism should be 
used if same label ranges were allocated for multiple PCEs, but it would be 
good to specify details how state-sync will solve synchronization issue (if PCC 
is connected to both PCEs, then both PCEs should see already allocated labels 
from PCRpt messages directly from PCC)
  *   One small type in section 1 “This documnet adds t…””

Thanks,
Samuel

From: Dhruv Dhody 
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 1:10 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[????????????]

Hi Dhruv & WG，
 I have reviewed this draft, and I support the adoption of this draft  by 
the PCE WG.

  Thanks！

Xinxin Yi

发件人： Dhruv Dhody
发送时间： 2024-05-17 19:39
收件人： pce
抄送： pce-chairs; 
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space
主题： [警惕！外部邮件][Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16
Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
如果您错误接收了该邮件，请通过电子邮件立即通知我们。请回复邮件到 
hqs-s...@chinaunicom.cn，即可以退订此邮件。我们将立即将您的信息从我们的发送目录中删除。 If you have received 
this email in error please notify us immediately by e-mail. Please reply to 
hqs-s...@chinaunicom.cn ,you can unsubscribe from this mail. We will 
immediately remove your information from send catalogue of our.
___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[xiong.quan]

Dear Chairs,

I read the draft and support the adoption since it is reasonable to be an 
experimental draft.
And it is useful to provide another option for PCECC model to collect the space 
information other than BGP-LS.
But I am confused about the new TLV extensions which is used to advertise the 
PCE-controlled ID spase to a PCE.
Why defines the TLVs in the OPEN object but not in LS Object as per 
[draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls] which is also reporting the information to PCE?

Thanks,
Quan

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[岳胜男]

Hi WG,











I support the adoption of this draft  by the PCE WG.  This draft describes a 
generic mechanism for a PCC to inform the PCE of the identifier space set aside 
for the PCE control .


 








Best regards,





Shengnan Yue













Hi WG,This email begins the WG adoption poll for 
draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/Should
 this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why 
not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work 
on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.Please respond by 
Monday 3rd June 2024.Please be more vocal during WG polls!Thanks!Dhruv & Julien



___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[chen.ran]

Hi Dhruv & WG，

I have reviewed this draft , but I have a few minor (non-blocking) comments:


1.Introduction
...[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6] specifies the procedures 
and PCEP extensions of PCECC for SRv6. An SRv6 SID is represented as LOC:FUNCT 
([RFC8986]) where LOC is the L most significant bits and FUNCT is the 128-L 
least significant bits...

According to RFC8986, it would be better to change the SID representation to: 
LOC:FUNCT:AGR.
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6] is already a working group 
draft, and [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] is published as RFC9256. 
Please check other referenced drafts for the latest draft version. 


7. IANA Considerations
Section 4 defines a new Erro-value=TBD for ID space control failure, but the 
IANA condiferations section does not cover this part of the IANA allocation.

Best Regards，
Ran


Original


From: DhruvDhody 
To: pce@ietf.org ;
Cc: pce-chairs ;draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org 
;
Date: 2024年05月17日 19:11
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org


Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Adrian Farrel]

Hi,

 

Thanks for this relatively simple document. I suspect it provides a function 
that will be useful.

 

I do have some thoughts, however.

 

The Abstract says “This document describes a generic mechanism” but the 
document actually seems to have nothing generic in it and requires a new TLV 
for each new identifier space. I wondered if you might make it more generic by 
having a single TLV that includes:
-  Identifier type (e.g., MPLS label, SRv6 SID, …)
-  Identifier-type-specific data (64 bits can be unused or could 
contain the SRv6 SID structure) 
o   Alternatively, Identifier-type-specific data length + variable 
Identifier-type-specific data.
-  Range information
o   Format depends on the Identifier type
But, perhaps the point is that the PCC might want to report more than one 
identifier space in the same Open Message?
 
I did also start to worry about the size of this TLV. It could get pretty ugly 
in the (unlikely?) case that the PCC says all odd numbers are available, but 
all even numbers are unavailable.
This sent me to RFC 3473 and the Label Set object for GMPLS. We might have a 
look to see if there is anything to learn (especially about the options for 
include/exclude).
 

Anyway, these are technical details. They can be fixed in WG discussion.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: Dhruv Dhody  
Sent: 17 May 2024 12:10
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

 

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Dongjie (Jimmy)]

Dear Chairs and authors,

I’ve reviewed this document and support its adoption. I have one comment which 
is for authors’ consideration (after adoption).

Section 6 currently considers that the ID space allocated to PCE could be 
withdrawn by resetting the PCE session. If possible some less interruptive 
mechanism for ID space withdrawal or update may be considered.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Dhruv Dhody 
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 7:10 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

[Cheng Li]

Hi PCE,

I support the adoption as an author. This is a straightforward and useful 
extension for PCE-initiated scenarios.
I will work on the draft after the draft is adopted for sure 

Thanks,
Cheng


From: Dhruv Dhody 
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 1:10 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-li-pce-controlled-id-sp...@ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 3rd June 2024.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org