Hi, Please find the review comments for this draft (there is some overlap with comments from Jon, Cyril etc)
*Major Comments:* (1) State synchronisation: a. PCE should determine the synchronisation is over as soon as possible, as updates, request etc are blocked during synchronisation. Maybe the last report message can have SYNC=0 (similar to F - fragmentation bit in RP object) or as Jon suggested an empty report but then the RBNF of PCRpt should support it. b. I also dont like the use of word 'purge' with respect to old or stale entries during PCEP session up/down. A mechanism to mark LSP entries as stale and waiting for them to be refreshed after session up and deleted (or 'purged') only after some timer expiry. (2) The PCRpt Message: <state-report> ::= <LSP>[<path-list>] Where: <path-list>::=<path>[<path-list>]. Is this to specify primary and backup? In which case the status of the paths needs to reported separately in case of standby but we have only one LSP object here to specify the operational status. Also LSP-ID of primary and backup would be different. Also applicable to PCUpd message. I feel the backup path should be updated and reported separately with each having there own encoding for LSP object. (3) Node Identifier TLV PCC may use address that survives the session restart (Loopback, MPLS LSR-ID etc), i suggest we mention this in the document and provide guidance to implementers to do this if possible. (4) LSP Object: a. What is relationship between the LSP-ID in LSP object and the LSP-ID in LSP Identifier TLVs? b. There is no mechanism to report the 'pending' state right now? O-Bit as zero will mean down, not pending. (5) Make-Before-Break: There is a need to clarify how MBB is achieved, what is the LSP-ID in case of updates and reports? *Minor Comments: * (1) Abstract/Introduction There is a consistent use of phrase "between and across PCEP sessions". Can you clarify? (2) Re-look the terminology section as some terms are no longer in the document. (3) LSP Protection In case of delegated PCE, the desired protection may also be configured at PCC and the active stateful PCE should support it, the stateful PCE having full control over the protection / restoration settings can only be achieved with instantiation capability and should be out of scope from this document. (4) Delegation a. The wording "an LSP may be delegated to one or more PCEs." .. this is incorrect, from the reading it looks as if this is happening at the same time. b. Active stateful PCE LSP Update (sec 5.6.2) OLD: A PCC may choose to compress LSP State Updates to only reflect the most up to date state, as discussed in the previous section. NEW: A PCC may choose to compress LSP State Reports to only reflect the most up to date state, as discussed in the previous section. (5) Symbolic Path Name TLV The length of this TLV must be greater then 0 as well as multiple of four. (6) LSP state DB version TLV (page 40, para 2) "Since a PCE does not send LSP updates to a PCC, a PCC should never encounter this TLV". LSP updates here can be easily confused with the PCUpd messages. Kindly reword this. Regards, Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
