Hi, My comments on the document are:
1) The format goes in the good,direction, but is not yet fully aligned with rfc6780, is this planned for a future revision? 2) My concern is the following statements: "For both cases, the association is uniquely identified by the combination of an association identifier and the address of the PCE peer that created the association." "Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes - An IPv4 or IPv6 address, which is associated to the PCE peer that originated the association." Those statement are not aligned with the RSVP association is managed. The reason stated is that the association state is tied to that PCE. Is this related to the fact that about any PCC/PCE can create association on a LSP? 3) Association control : the PCC and any PCE can create associations: this diverge from the existing mechanism from the statefull document. In my opinion this aspect makes the control and state maintenance more complicated. The use cases behind this multiple-controller model is not very clear. If the association is under the control a single entity (PCC or PCE), as in the stateful document, the association state then become part of the PCE state and the rules described in the stateful document applies (it up to the PCE who as delegation to set the association. This would also allow to get rid of the R bit, as mentioned by adrian (to remove an association: simply not send it) Which use cases will not be permitted by that mode of operation?
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
