> Please let me know what you think. Tomonori's address updated.
> Section 1 > network layering can be support -> network layering can be supported Ack > Section 2 > a hybrid nodes -> a hybrid node > In this case, PCE needs to be -> In this case, a PCE needs to be Ack > Section 3.1 > This text: > > o However, when the I flag is set (one), the M flag is clear (zero), > and the T flag is clear (zero), since triggered signaling is not > allowed, virtual TE links must not be used in path computation. > > I dont think I agree with this interpretation. The virtual TE links have > been set up ahead of time, and are already in the link state database > for the client layer, I believe? If so, using them for a client layer path > should not require any additional triggered signalling within the server > layer. My understanding of this combination of bits is that the computed > path may use virtual TE links in the client layer, but may not use loose > hops across the server layer, or specify nodes/links in the server layer > as explicit hops. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding this. I think a virtual link may or may not already be set up in the underlying network. That is, the link appears in the TED, but may be ready for use of may require triggered signalling before it can be used. In the PCReq the PCC can say "You must supply a path that can only be used if it is pre-established" (T=0) or "You can supply a path that can be left unestablished requires triggered signalling if you like" (T=1). Given that interpretation, does your understanding change? > I think we should strengthen the requirements of the following text: > > Reserved bits of the INTER-LAYER object SHOULD be transmitted as zero > and SHOULD be ignored on receipt. A PCE that forwards a path > computation request to other PCEs SHOULD preserve the settings of > reserved bits in the PCReq messages it sends and in the PCRep > messages it forwards to PCCs. > > as follows: > > Reserved bits of the INTER-LAYER object sent between a PCC and > PCE in the same domain MUST be transmitted as zero > and SHOULD be ignored on receipt. A PCE that forwards a path > computation request to other PCEs MUST preserve the settings of > reserved bits in the PCReq messages it sends and in the PCRep > messages it forwards to PCCs. > > Otherwise, an implementation that chooses to ignore the SHOULDs > could break any new features that want to use the reserved bits. I can go with your changed wording. But beware the people who say that, as a result of the "MUST" you can't build any protocol extensions :-) > A few typos in 3.1: > and also in PCRpt, PCUpd, and PCInitiate message -> and also in PCRpt, PCUpd, and PCInitiate messages > When M flag is set (zero) -> When M flag is clear (zero) > or stitched (xref target="RFC5150" /> LSPs : stray text xref target bugged XML? Ack > Section 3.3 > without INTER-LAYER Object -> without an INTER-LAYER Object Ack > Section 3.5 > This text: > > Optional TLVs: Optional TLVs may be included within the object to > specify more specific server layer path information (e.g., traffic > parameters). > > I think it would be better to say > > Optional TLVs: Optional TLVs MAY be included within the object to > specify more specific server layer path information (e.g., traffic > parameters). Such TLVs will be defined by other documents. Sure > Section 4.1 > Please expand the acronym VNTM on first use. Ack in the last para of section 2. > Please include reference to RFC 5541 when discussing the OF object. Ack > Section 4.2 > PCE MAY specify -> The PCE MAY specify > the requested PCE replies a PCRep message -> the requested PCE sends a PCRep message I used "replies with a PCRep message" > Section 4.3 > message objects define in this -> message objects defined in this Ack > Section 5 > Minor typo in the RBNF: > <PCReq Message>::= <Common Header> > [<SVEC-list>] > <request-list> > That should be [<svec-list>]. Ack > Section 7.2 > The description of the T bit should probably be Triggered > Signalling Allowed to be consistent with the other two > (which are named according to their role on the PCReq). Yes I'll wait for your response on the one discussion point before I post. Thanks, Adrian -- Buy somone you love a book for Christmas Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales. More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen MORE new fairy tales. https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924 Or buy from me direct. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
