Hi Adrian, (snip to the only open issue here)
> > [DD]Going back to the original text (and not focusing on protection), > > I > mentioned > > in my earlier mail... > > > > This sections gives an impression that the delegation of LSP > > can only be done once the LSP is setup and then LSR (PCC) passes > > responsibility for triggering reoptimization or re-routing of an > > LSP to the PCE. In case of a new tunnel configuration with > > delegation enabled, IMHO the PCC should be able to delegate > > even when it has no path right now. > > > > I suggest rewording to not limit delegation to "passing responsibility > > for > triggering > > reoptimization or re-routing". > > Maybe use the wording of the draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-06: > > > > "LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where > > a PCC (usually an ingress LSR) grants the right to update LSP > > attributes of an LSP to the PCE." > > Well, I don't call that delegation. Others may disagree, but I don't see any > difference between what you described as "delegation before LSP > establishment" > and any other request to the Active PCE to cause an LSP to be set up. > > I think there is also some subtlety in the text you quoted from the stateful > PCE draft. Is a PCC obliged to act on the update it receives from a PCE? I > think there is always the case where the PCC tries to act, but fails for some > reason (for example, there has been a change in the network in the meantime). > So we have the possibility for the PCC to say "sorry, but no." So the only > question is whether the PCC can say that for its own reasons. I believe the > answer is "yes" > and the magic unicorn in this picture is called "Policy". [DD] I agree with this and I see that you have added text in -03 version. But my concern is with the fact that the current section only talks about "re-optimization or re-routing". As you also mention that, there might be 'delegation' before LSP establishment and thus I was thinking something in line of.... OLD: LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where a PCC (usually an ingress LSR) passes responsibility for triggering reoptimization or re-routing of an LSP to the PCE. In this case, the PCE would need to be both Stateful and Active. NEW: LSP delegation [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] is the process where a PCC (usually an ingress LSR) grants the right to suggest updates to LSP attributes of an LSP to the PCE. In this case, the PCE would need to be both Stateful and Active. ... so that it doesn't limit to re-optimization/re-routing as well as only 'suggest' updates! I hope this change is reasonable? Regards, Dhruv > > A _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
