Hi Cyril, Thanks for your review and suggestions. I could not get to this earlier, apologies for that! Please see inline...
Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-05.txt Txt: https://github.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-05.txt From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cyril Margaria Sent: 02 February 2018 04:54 To: LITKOWSKI Stephane DTF/DERX <stephane.litkow...@orange.com> Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC of draft-ietf-pce-association-group Hi, I support the feature, I have the following comment regarding the draft: - There is not mandated capability negotiation, this generally makes interworking more cumbersome. This could be resolved by mandating the presence of OP-CONF-ASSOC-RANGE, and using reserved value 0,0 for Start-Assoc-ID, Range to indicate that there is no Operator-configured Association Range. [[Dhruv Dhody]] The presence of ASSOCIATION object in PCEP message is a good indicator for this feature. Not sure if there is a need to exchange capabilities in OPEN, we have followed the similar approach in RFC5455, 5520, 5521 etc. Section 4.1 : what happens if the dynamic allocation ranges do not match between the two peer ? is it allowed or should the session be bounced? A special case can be made when one peer advertise (0,0) [[Dhruv Dhody]] I have added an appendix with an example to make this clearer, please let me know if I need to make any change for this! section 5.2.1: - the PCC can remove an association by setting the R flag to 1, if the PCC does not include any association, should the association be kept on the LSP? [[Dhruv Dhody]] The R flag is set in association, if association id is zero, that is invalid; if association id is 0xffff, then it is all association within the scope of association type/source; otherwise it looks for association, if not found it is considered as unknown association. - I think the following should be added : PCRpt: all associations MUST be reported during state synchronization [[Dhruv Dhody]] Ack. - Value 0 was previously used to ask a peer to allocate an association ID. Is it deemed not necessary anymore. [[Dhruv Dhody]] Yes Section 5.3: - the "association information" is not defined. The whole section can be clarified by detailing what the association information is.: is it (association type, association source, association-id), from the association group definitions, the triplet defines a group, so it should be possible to have several association id for th same type, source [[Dhruv Dhody]] I have added a new section on it, also clarified “association information” and “association parameters” in section 5.3 Does the the "association information previously received about the same association from a peer" relates to the association group (should there be an unique association id per lsp for a given type,source) or does it refers to the optional TLVs. " On receiving association information that does not match with the association information previously received about the same association from a peer, it MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type TBD "Association Error" and Error-Value 6 "Association information mismatch"" [[Dhruv Dhody]] it is latter, I have updated! This could be clarified, IMHO generally speaking the draft should allow several association id per (type, source), this kind of restriction may be defined in the documents defining the association types. [[Dhruv Dhody]] Please check the diff and let me know if there is scope of any other improvement. Thanks for your patience. Regards, Dhruv Thanks, Cyril On 1 February 2018 at 10:38, <stephane.litkow...@orange.com<mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com>> wrote: Support -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2018 15:10 To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] WG LC of draft-ietf-pce-association-group Hi all, This message initiates a 2-week WG last call for draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04. Please review and share your feedback on the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Thursday February, 15. Regards, Jon & Julien _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
