Hi Barry, Thanks for your detailed review. The working copy is updated with your suggestions.
Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-13&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-14.txt Thanks! Dhruv On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:58 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-13: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for this document. I have only editorial suggestions (albeit, a lot of > them). There's no need to reply in any detail; just please consider adopting > these suggestions. Thanks. > > — Abstract — > > computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated and > > Need a hyphen in “traffic-engineered”. > > — Section 1.1 — > > This document presents general considerations for stateful PCEs, and > not Stateless PCEs, in the hierarchical PCE architecture. In > particular, the behavior changes and additions to the existing > stateful PCE mechanisms (including PCE-initiated LSP setup and active > PCE usage) in the context of networks using the H-PCE architecture. > > The second “sentence” is not a complete sentence. One way to fix that is by > changing “In particular,” to “It focuses on”. > > stitching Per Domain LSPs. > > Throughout, “Per-Domain” needs a hyphen. > > — Section 1.2 — > > In the title, “Use Cases” should *not* be hyphenated (it’s a noun, and not > being used as a modifier). There’s also an instance of this in Section 3. > > As per [RFC6805], in the hierarchical PCE architecture, a P-PCE > > The second comma doesn’t belong. > > It could also be a change in topology at the P-PCE > such as inter-domain link status change. > > You could take that extra comma and put it here, after “P-PCE”. > > Additionally a per-domain stitched LSP > > And then make a copy of that comma and put it after “Additionally”. > > setup, whereas Section 3.3.1 describe the per-domain stitching. > > “describes” > > — Section 1.2.1 — > > support the function of multi domain coordination via hierarchy, > > Hyphenate “multi-domain”, or make it one word (“multidomain”). > > Virtual Network (VN) requirements before requesting for the VN to be > provisioned. > > That sounds odd using “for” and “to be”. It should be “…requesting that the > VN > be provisioned.” > > P-PCE and C-PCEs. When the CNC requests for VN provisioning, the MDSC > > Remove “for”. > > decompose this request into multiple inter-domain LSP provisioning > > “decomposes” > > — Section 1.2.2 — > > In case of a stateful P-PCE, the stateful P-PCE has to be aware of > > You don’t have to say “stateful P-PCE” twice. You can either remove the word > “stateful” the second time, or (better, I think) simply remove the first > clause > and say, “A stateful P-PCE has to…” > > For example, a domain diverse path from another LSP. > > That’s not a sentence; please make it one or merge it into an adjacent > sentence > (I can’t figure out the right way to do that from the text you have). > > The other LSP could be > an associated LSP (such as protection) or an unrelated LSP whose > > I don’t understand the use of “protection” here; can you clarify? > > — Section 1.2.3 — > > Similarly, a P-PCE could also request for delegation if it needs to > > Remove “for”. > > — Section 3 — > > All PCE types herein (i.e., EC-EP or EP-EC) are assumed to > > It should be “and”, not “or”, and I suggest removing the “i.e.” and just > saying > “(EC-EP and EP-EC)”. > > A number of interactions are expected in the Hierarchical Stateful > PCE architecture, these include: > > This is called a “comma splice”. Make it a period instead (and have “These” > start a new sentence). Alternatively, change “these include” to “including”. > > Note that this hierarchy is recursive and thus a Label Switching > Router (LSR), as a PCC could delegate the control to a PCE, which may > delegate to its parent, which may further delegate it to its parent > (if it exist or needed). Similarly update operations could also be > applied recursively. > > This has a number of problems, so let me just fix it here: > > NEW > Note that this hierarchy is recursive, so a Label Switching Router > (LSR), as a PCC, could delegate control to a PCE, which may in turn > delegate to its parent, which may further delegate to its parent > (if it exists). Similarly, update operations can also be applied > recursively. > END > > an Open message indicates the support for stateful H-PCE operations > as described in this document. > > Remove “as”. > > procedures to minimise computational loops. > > “minimize” — if you use British spelling you need to be consistent about it, > and you’re otherwise using American spelling throughout the document. > > — Section 3.1 — > > It then sends computation requests to the C- > PCEs responsible for each of the domains on the candidate domain > > I think it’s better not to allow “C-PCE” (and other such terms) to be > hyphen-split across lines. > > A local policy at > C-PCE may dictate which LSPs to be reported to the P-PCE. > > “to be” is not right here. I’d make it “are” (or “should be”). > > State synchronization mechanism as described in [RFC8231] and > [RFC8232] are applicable > > “mechanisms” > > We use the sample hierarchical domain topology example from [RFC6805] > > I’d remove “sample”, because “example” covers it. Or remove “example”… either > way. > > following additional steps are added for stateful PCE to be executed > at the end: > > Comma after “PCE”, please. > > — Section 3.2 — > > As per [RFC8051], Delegation is an operation to grant a PCE, > temporary rights > > Remove the comma after “PCE”. > > The C-PCE may further choose to delegate to P-PCE based > on a local policy. > > To any P-PCE? Or “to its P-PCE”? > > The PCRpt message with "D" (delegate) flag is > sent from C-PCE to P-PCE. > > ‘with the “D” (delegate) flag’ (add ‘the’) > > For LSP delegated to the P-PCE via the child PCE, > the P-PCE can use the same PCUpd message to request change to the C- > PCE (the Ingress domain PCE), the PCE further propagates the update > request to the PCC. > > Again, multiple issues: > > NEW > For an LSP delegated to a P-PCE via the child PCE, the P-PCE > can use the same PCUpd message to request a change to the C-PCE > (the Ingress domain PCE). The PCE further propagates the update > request to the PCC. > END > > — Section 3.3 — > > In case of inter-domain LSP in > Hierarchical PCE architecture, the initiation operations can be > carried out at the P-PCE. In which case after P-PCE finishes the E2E > path computation, it can send the PCInitiate message to the C-PCE > > There are articles missing here. I think it should be “an inter-domain LSP” > and “after the P-PCE finishes”. > > The following steps are performed, for PCE initiated operations, > > Remove the first comma and hyphenate “PCE-initiated”. > > — Section 3.3.1 — > > operation is possible, where multiple intra-domain LSPs are initiated > in each domain which are further stitched to form an E2E LSP. > > Needs a comma after “each domain”. > > The following steps are performed, for the Per Domain stitched LSP > > Remove the comma. > > Note that each per-domain LSP can be setup in parallel. > > “set up”, two words. > > — Section 5.1 — > > If a parent PCE receives report from an unauthorized child > > “a report” > > All mechanism as described in > [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] continue to apply. > > “mechanisms” > > — Section 5.2 — > > The PCEP YANG module > [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] may be extended to include details for > stateful H-PCE deployment and operation, exact attributes to be > modeled is out of scope for this document. > > Who will (or may) extend it, and when might that happen? > And change the comma to a period and capitalize “Exact” (another comma > splice). > > — Section 6.3 — > > Along with the confidentiality during path > computation, the child PCE could also conceal the path information, a > C-PCE may replace a path segment with a path-key [RFC5520], > effectively hiding the content of a segment of a path. > > Combination of problems: > > NEW > Along with maintaining confidentiality during path > computation, the child PCE could also conceal the path information. > A C-PCE may replace a path segment with a path-key [RFC5520], > effectively hiding the content of a segment of a path. > END > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
