Stephane, PIM and BESS WG drafts have been updated with suggested change from "PCE" to "controller".
-Rishabh On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 10:42 AM Rishabh Parekh <risha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stephane, > RFC 9524, the base for both the PIM and BESS WG drafts, only uses the term > "PCE" in the text, but PCE is just used as an example of a control plane to > establish Replication segments. Let me see how I can incorporate the > "controller" replacement in PIM and BESS drafts. > > -Rishabh > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 8:33 AM Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) < > slitk...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Rishabh. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Rishabh Parekh <risha...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Monday, July 7, 2025 4:48 PM >> *To:* slitkows.i...@gmail.com >> *Cc:* Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <slitk...@cisco.com>; >> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; >> pim-cha...@ietf.org >> *Subject:* Re: [bess] Re: Chair review of >> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp >> >> >> >> Stephane, >> >> I prefer the second option i.e. "Controller/PCE". However it maybe >> cumbersome to read this frequently in the documents, so I think we should >> use "Controller" and describe PCE as an example. I will edit both of the >> drafts for this change. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Rishabh >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 1:33 AM <slitkows.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> (Adding PIM chairs so they are informed) >> >> >> >> Hi Rishabh, >> >> >> >> I discussed offline with PCE chairs, and they agree that it’s better to >> use “Controller” or “Controller/PCE” as PCE notion is tied now to PCEP >> protocol. >> >> Likely the PIM draft needs to be updated too. >> >> >> >> Brgds, >> >> >> >> Stephane >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Rishabh Parekh <risha...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, June 27, 2025 6:55 PM >> *To:* Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <slitkows=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> *Cc:* draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org >> *Subject:* [bess] Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp >> >> >> >> Stephane, >> >> >> >> Inline @ [RP] >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 2:01 AM Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <slitkows= >> 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >> Hi authors, >> >> >> >> Please find below my chair/shepherd’s review of >> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp. >> >> >> >> >> >> Introduction: >> >> >> >> - “A SR P2MP tree is defined by a SR P2MP Policy and instantiated via >> a PCE” >> >> >> - I would use the name controller instead of PCE. PCE is really tied >> to PCEP protocol IMO. If we agree, then you should change it across the >> doc. I appears in other sections too. >> >> >> >> [RP] This draft is based on the PIM WG SR P2MP policy draft >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy/ which >> describes use of PCE to compute P2MP trees. Section 4.4 of that draft >> clarifies that various protocols, such as PCEP, BGP etc. can be used >> between PCE and PCC. IMO, it is appropriate to use PCE in this draft. >> >> >> >> Section 2: >> >> - “A Replication segment of a SR P2MP tree can be instantiated…” >> >> >> - Shoudln’t you provide informational refs here ? >> >> >> >> [RP] The preceding text provides references for both Replication segments >> (RFC 9524) SR P2MP tree (draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy). Isn't that >> sufficient. >> >> >> >> Section 3: >> >> - I would enhance the tunnel-type description with a list, something >> like >> >> >> >> “ * Tunnel Type: >> >> · 0x0c for SR-MPLS P2MP tree >> >> · TBD for SRv6 P2MP Tree >> >> “ >> >> >> >> Section 3.1.2 >> >> s/”Domain- wide”/”Domain-wide” (remove space) >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 4.1.1 >> >> >> >> Use an XML reference for RFC6514 Section 9.1.1 instead of hardcoding in >> text. (same in 4.1.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.3.2…). >> >> >> >> [RP] These are "external" (eref as described in >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7991#section-2.24) references, >> which are rendered appropriately as URI links in HTML format and with URI >> text in TXT format. >> >> >> >> When you refer to “condition (c)”, it’s not clear, where it’s defined. >> >> >> >> [RP] Added reference to Section 9.1.1 RFC 6514 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Section 10 >> >> >> >> Please fix last name of Luc Andre (there are two “t” instead of t, it >> should be Burdet). >> >> >> >> [RP] Fixed. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Stephane >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org >> >>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
