Hi JP, Thanks for the update. Everything seems fine to me except 2 minor comments. See inline
>> That is my fault :-( >> >> The I-D is at revision -03 >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-03.txt >> >> You still have until Monday next week if you want to make comments. >> >> As my punishment, I have gone through Fabien's email to check which of >> his coments still apply... >> >> >> Below my comments on monitoring draft: >> >> Section 3.1: >> >> Example 3: The request must also contain a MONITORING object. >> >> Issue stands. >> > That was "in addition to" but the text had been clarified, thanks. > > Ok >> Section 3.2: >> >> The format of a PCReq message is as follows: >> >> Must be >> >> The format of a PCMonRep message is as follows: >> >> Issue stands > > Fixed. > Format of a PCMonReq (out of band request): Must be replaced by Format of a PCMonRep (out of band request): >> >> Section 4.1: >> >> Seems the first sentence is repeated twice. >> >> Fixed in revision -03 >> >> >> Besides it is said that the Monitoring object MAY be included in >> PCReq and PCRep so I think it would be good to add the enhanced >> PCReq and PCRep BNF description. >> >> Issue stands >> > Added. > Ok >> >> Also in 4.1 >> s/PCEReq/PCReq/ >> > Fixed. > Ok >> >>General comment: >> >> The in-band monitoring request is not fully clear to me. >> > > You are right that this is not clearly explained in the current text. > >> >> If there are several path computation requests in the PCReq >> which one is targeting? >> i.e. Must the PCE return the processing time for each request seperatly >> or a single processing time for all requests? > > We could decide to have one MONITORING object per request in the bundle > case > but this does > introduce some complexity and is not likely to be that useful. I'd rather > propose to keep the current > mode with one MONITORING object per PCMonReq or PCReq message. When > present > the > monitoring request applies to all requests of the bundle. Text added in > section 3.2. > Seems good to me except maybe I would rather put the text in section 3.1 that deals with PCReq. > " > As pointed out in [PCEP] we can have several situations: > o Bundle of a set of independent and non-synchronized path > computation requests, > > o Bundle of a set of independent and synchronized path computation > requests (SVEC object defined below required), > > o Bundle of a set of dependent and synchronized path computation > requests (SVEC object defined below required). > > In the case of a bundle of a set of request, the MONITORING object SHOULD > only be present in the > first PCReq or PCMonReq message and the monitoring request applies to all > the request of the bundle, > even in the case of dependent and/or synchronized requests sent using more > than one PCReq or > PCMonReq message. > > > > > >> In first case what happens if there is an SVEC object and Path Requests >> are spread in multiple PCRep messages. Must the Monitoring object be >> repeated? > > > See above. > Ok > >> If a PCRep contains a Monitoring object, is it possible that >> this PCRep contains Path replies not related to the Monitoring >> request? > > Yes because in the BNF, the <metric-pce-list> is per in the <response> > Ok > Thanks for the comments. > > Cheers, > > JP. > > > > > Issue stands. > > Happy New Year > > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
