Hi Julien, I agree. So "MAY" is the best way forward.
Regards, Dhruv > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 09 May 2017 15:51 > To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > Cc: Jonathan Hardwick <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Pce] Stateful PCE: inconsistency in "resource limit" text > > Hi Dhruv, > > At this stage, it seems a bit late to introduce this change into the > document. However, keeping only "MAY" would allow implementations to > behave the way you suggest. Do we consider your feedback as supporting > "MAY"? > > Thanks, > > Julien > > > May. 09, 2017 - [email protected]: > > > > Hi Jon, WG, > > > > > > > > I feel this was done to differentiate two cases - > > > > > > > > (1) The resource limit happened during state synchronization > > (section 5.6) - with MUST close session > > > > (2) The resource limit happened during normal state report - with > > MAY close session > > > > > > > > We could make this explicit and differentiate the two scenarios? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Dhruv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:*Pce [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan > > Hardwick > > *Sent:* 08 May 2017 21:49 > > > > > > > > Hi PCE WG > > > > > > > > I've been tidying up the stateful PCE draft to prepare it for > > publication and I have discovered an inconsistency in how the stateful > > PCE is supposed to handle an overflow of its per-PCC resource limit. > > In section 5.6 it says: > > > > > > > > A PCE implementing a limit on the resources a single PCC can > > occupy, > > > > MUST send a PCNtf message with Notification Type to be allocated by > > > > IANA (Stateful PCE resource limit exceeded) and Notification Value > > to > > > > be allocated by IANA (Entering resource limit exceeded state) in > > > > response to the PCRpt message triggering this condition in the > > > > synchronization phase and MUST terminate the session. > > > > > > > > Whereas in section 6.1 it says: > > > > > > > > A PCE may choose to implement a limit on the resources a single PCC > > can occupy. If a PCRpt is received that causes the PCE to exceed > > this limit, the PCE MUST notify the PCC using a PCNtf message with > > Notification Type to be allocated by IANA (Stateful PCE resource > > limit exceeded) and Notification Value to be allocated by IANA > > (Entering resource limit exceeded state) and MAY terminate the > > session. > > > > > > > > These sections are inconsistent because the first says the PCE MUST > > terminate the session whereas the second says the PCE MAY terminate > > the session. > > > > > > > > Furthermore, in section 8.6, the following notification is defined for > > "exiting resource limit exceeded state", but this notification is not > > referenced anywhere in the text. > > > > > > > > Notification-Type Meaning > > 4 Stateful PCE resource limit exceeded > > Notification-value=2: Exiting resource limit exceeded > > state > > > > > > > > Please could I ask all implementers: > > > > - MUST the PCE terminate the session if its state limit is > > exceeded, or MAY it leave it open? > > > > - Has anybody implemented the "exiting resource limit > > exceeded state" notification? If so, how are you using it? > > > > > > > > Your swiftest answers would be very much appreciated! > > > > > > > > If I don't get any contradictory replies, my default action will be to > > say that the session MUST be terminated and to remove the unreferenced > > notification-value. > > > > > > > > Many thanks > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
