Very belatedly... Thanks Julien. Making all these changes in the next revision.
Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Julien > Meuric > Sent: 03 July 2013 17:05 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-10 > > Hi. > > Besides the previous comments already raised, mostly on section 2, I > would add the following: > > ---------- > Title + Abstract + Introduction > ----- > s/Path Computation Element Protocol/Path Computation Element > Communication Protocol/ [x3] > ---------- > Section 2 > ----- > s/flag is clear, then as defined in [RFC5440],/flag is clear then, as > defined in [RFC5440],/ > ---------- > Section 5 > ----- > Another protocol name without "communication", but no need to add it > there since it is the current name of the registry... > ---------- > Section 6 > ----- > s/SHUOLD/SHOULD/ [already mentioned by Robert] > ---------- > > > Best regards, > > Julien > > > Le 26/06/2013 11:54, Ramon Casellas a écrit : > > El 26/06/2013 9:40, Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich) escribió: > >> Support. > >> > >> I have a few remarks : > >> 1) The <svec-list> definition does include the definitions from > >> RFC5541 and RFC5557, the RFC5557 did not include the [<metric-list>] > >> element, should this fixed by RFC5557 errata to match the > >> pce-vendor-constraints definition? > >> > >> 2) This document include the XRO in the svec-list, but not in the > >> <request>, where should it go in the <request>? > >> > >> 3) the Path key expansion requests, nor monitoring are considered, > >> is it OK? Basically should a new document take into account all the > >> existing RFCs grammar element or should it cherry pick (and based on > >> which criteria) > >> > >> 4) RFC5440/RFC6006/pce-vendor-constraints compatibility: > >> RFC5440 indicates that the object order MUST be followed, > >> RFC6006 did change the object order defined in RFC5440: > >> - RRO list and RRO bandwidth should follow the <ENDPOINTS>, > >> not the <metric-list>, > >> - 3 BANDWITH objects are allowed > >> - [<OF>] is before the [<LSPA>] in RFC6006 but after the > >> [<metric-list>] in RFC5541 > >> pce-vendor-constraints does use the [<OF>] definition of > >> RFC5541 (after [<metric-list>]), add the [<RRO>] (without > >> [<BANDWIDTH>]) before the [<IRO>]( in contrary to RFC6006, which put > >> the RROs after the endpoints) > >> > >> The object order are not consistent, which is not very good for > >> implementation (need to support the different variation) > >> > >> I understand the need for a different grammar in RFC6006, my > >> preference would be to define one p2p grammar and one p2mp grammar > >> (as this is in the RP this is not perfect, but OK from implementation > >> point of view) (as in gmpls-pcep-extensions). > >> For the other points think this could be covered by erratas in the > >> original documents. > > > > Dear all, > > > > I share Cyril's comments. In my humble opinion, we are more and more > > having a set of documents with grammars selecting only some objects > > from existing documents and not covering them all and, once integrated > > in a single implementation, it becomes harder to make sense of all > > them (e.g. "bandwidths" made worse later with also > > GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTHs). Ordering constraints are also a problem that > > would need to be addressed. > > > > Below a minor review. The draft is quite clear and self-explanatory > > (all my comments are minor) . > > > > > > OLD > > The object can be present in two places within the PCReq message to > > enable it to apply to a single path computation request or to a set > > of synchronized requests > > > > Sorry to be picky, but I count three :-) within a SVEC, within an > > individual request both as a direct constraint and within the endpoint > > rro pair-list. Maybe just > > > > NEW > > The object can be present to enable it to apply to a single path > > computation request or to a set of synchronized requests. > > > > > > > > * I would, if not too much effort, separate the case where a PCE does > > not parse/understand the VENDOR-INFORMATION object from the case it > > does not support a given Enterprise number. In other words, the draft > > could specify the procedures when a PCE finds a VERDOR-INFORMATION > > object with an Enterprise number it does not understand (as done for > > TLV, Section 2.1 deals with the case of "unknown object".) Maybe > > something in the lines of "If the Enterprise Number is unknown to the > > PCE, the PCE (...)". I think it could be useful to have a dedicated > > error code for that. Alternatively Just add the text "If the > > Enterprise Number is unknown to the PCE, it MUST treat that object as > > Unknown" but I like this less. The curent text "if the P flag is set, > > the object will be treated as mandatory and the request will either be > > processed using the contents of the object" somehow covers it > > implicitly, thuogh but I would like to see it explicitly written. > > > > OLD > > > > - The PCE determines how to interpret the information in the Vendor > > Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it contains. > > > > NEW > > > > - The PCE determines how to interpret the information in the Vendor > > Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it contains. > > If the Enterprise Number is unknown to the PCE, it MUST treat that > > object as an Unknown object. > > > > > > > > Note that the TLV text currently states > > > > - The PCE determines how to interpret the Vendor Information TLV by > > examining the Enterprise Number it contains. If the Enterprise > > Number is unknown to the PCE, it MUST treat the Vendor Information > > TLV as an unknown TLV > > > > > > > > > > * <request> ::= lacks a [<XRO>] after [<IRO>] since XRO is mentioned > > > > > > > > * <request> ::= I would suggest moving the vendor-info-list after > > endpoints (for both p2p and p2mp) My personal preference would be > > after metric list and objective function. endpoint-rro-pair-list at > > least includes one mandatory ENDPOINTS object, making the mandatory RP > > and ENDPOINTS objects appear first. > > > > > > * The draft states "Thus, the PCReq message based on [RFC6006] is > > encoded as follows". Much like RFC6006, the draft is ignoring the BNC > > object in the grammar. Also it is not clear where in the PCReq it > > should appear. RFC6006 also says that "The object can only be carried > > in a PCReq message. A Path Request may carry at most one Branch Node > > Object". But I am not sure how to specify a branch node list and a > > non-branch node list. > > > > > > * The draft just says "The Vendor Information object can be included > > in a PCRep message in exactly the same way as any other object as > > defined in [RFC5440]" I would suggest to provide a suggested > > grammar/ordering which includes not only the vendor-information-list > > but also othe RFC6006 extensions notably regarding > > end-point-path-pair-list and ERO/SERO. As a bare minimum the draft > > should refer to RFC6006 regarding to PCRep message instead of RFC5440. > > > > > > * As RFC6006, the draft is ignoring the UNREACH-DESTINATION object and > > is not present in the PCRep grammar > > > > > > > > Other "philosophical" comments > > ============================= > > > > Although I understand it is inherited from RFC6006, it is unfortunate > > that that we keep the name of endpoint-rro-pair-list, since it is more > > and and more losing its meaning of a (endpoint, rro) pair list. > > Dreaming on, I also believe it could useful to split into a P2P > > grammar and a P2MP grammar, roughly as follows (as Cyril mentioned > > this was also suggested for GMPLS extensions and clarifies RFC6006. In > > any case, an implementation needs to parse the RP object to know if it > > is a p2p or p2mp) > > > > <request> ::= <expansion> | <p2p_computation> | <p2mp_computation> > > > > <expansion> ::= <RP> <PATH-KEY> > > > > <p2p_computation> ::= <RP><ENDPOINTS> [<attributes>] > > > > <attributes> ::= CLASSTYPE LSPA BANDWIDTH metric-list > > objective-functions vendor-info-list rro-bw-pair IRO BNC XRO > > LOADBALANDING ... (all optional and parsed in any order for interworking) > > > > <p2mp_computation> ::= <RP><tree-list>[<attributes>] > > > > <tree-list> ::= <tree> [<tree-list>] > > > > <tree> ::= <ENDPOINTS> <rro_bw_pair> etc. > > > > Finally, as a a personal comment which I echoed when the draft was > > polled, and althgouh I support this draft, I still hope that the > > objects and TLVs defined in this document are not overused and that > > objective functions, related metrics, and constraints in general are > > defined following open processes. > > > > > > Thanks > > R. > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
