Julien, Not sure where this draft stands now after the latest revisions which were posted more than a month ago. Is there anything else needed from the authors?
Thank you, Ina On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Robert Varga <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/01/2016 02:36 PM, Julien Meuric wrote: > > Hi Robert. > > > Hello Julien, > > Thank you for your help to move this forward. Please find my comments > below [JM]. Note that a couple of your answers are not aligned with the > proposed resolutions currently included the I-D: I was fine with these, > therefore please make sure you are so that I can send to the IESG. > > > please see inline, I am pruning the items we have converged on... > > Julien > > > Jan. 18, 2016 - <[email protected]>[email protected]: > > [snip] > > - Avoiding "positive acknowledgements for properly received >> synchronization messages" has scalability benefits in normal situations, >> but the PCC is blind and may keep on sending PCRpt to dead processes behind >> up PCEP sessions. Have you consider acknowledgement, possibly using a >> compression mechanism like the one defined later in the I-D? >> > ### XXX Pending > > > The association between a PCEP session and PCE processes is something > which I would consider an internal PCE detail, and it should be covered by > the next sentence (e.g. raise PCErr 20/1). > > [JM] I still feel unwise to consider a lack of feedback as a proof of > synchronization. What if, from time to time, a PCRpt gets lost? I do not > think acknowledgement would be a pain to add, but its lack can easily turn > to that in operational situations. > > > The assumption here is that PCEP runs on top of TCP, so no PCRpts get lost > on the network without also losing the session. The procedures for > validating that the session is in fact synchronized (possibly on a periodic > basis) are part of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations. I think we > can add some text around that. > > - In section 5.5.1, it is not clear if an empty LSP Update Request with a >> Delegate flag to 1 is an acceptable way for a PCE to send a delegation >> acknowledgement: to be clarified. >> > ### XXX Pending > > > It is not, as that would be seen as a request to modify the LSP setup to > empty. Such an acknowledgement would have to include full configuration as > previously reported -- which would be handled as a normal update. > > [JM] The I-Ds says the contrary: to be checked. Note that empty could be > loose, which seems possible to handle at the signaling level. > > > I think this is clarified in -13 (section 5.7). > > > - The behavior associated to the resource limit per PCC rather looks like >> a Notifcation than an Error (e.g., in RFC 5440, cancelling a set of pending >> requests relies on PCNtf). Please consider the use of Notification instead >> of Error here. >> > ### XXX Pending > > > Current wording is based on the assumption that the PCE has to have a > consistent point-in-time view of the PCC's state. In this regard a PCRpt of > a new LSP which exceeds PCE implementation-internal limit on the number of > LSPs it supports would break that assumption, hence we chose PCErr. This > makes it consistent with what would happen if that LSP is reported during > initial state resynchronization. > > [JM] Please note that the current I-D uses "PCNtf", and I am fine with > that resolution. I was not questioning the expected behavior, which must > remain. I was just suggesting the expected type of message to be consistent > with RFC 5440: the PCC has not made anything wrong, it is informed that the > PCE no more accepts its reports similarly to the way a PCE is able to tell > about overload or cancel some requests. > > > I'll try to re-read the entire thing and report back. > > > - It would be nice to elaborate on the reason why the SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME >> MUST be included and not SHOULD. >> - I do not see why SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME may be included in SRP Object: >> defining the LSP Object as its single place seems enough and much simpler. >> > > ### XXX Pending > > > The MUST is there to maintain a single global identifier for the LSP. > PLSP-ID is then used as a shorthand. I do not recollect the exact reasoning > as to why the TLV can be in SRP, as the placement and semantics of that TLV > has changed quite a bit over the past couple of years. If I were to venture > a guess, I think it was retrofitted to allow the PCE to update the symbolic > path name. > > [JM] OK about the "MUST". About SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME in SRP, please choose: > either it is legacy and must be dropped (current version), or there is a > reason and it must be documented in the I-D. > > > It was introduced in -05 revision with the SRP object. We'll dig in > history some more to see where this came from. > > Bye, > Robert >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
