Hi All, Thanks for the discussion. I have updated text based on Adrian's suggestion.
See diff - https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-11&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-12.txt Skip to Section 5.7 to see related changes. Let me know if any further changes are needed. Thanks! Dhruv On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:46 PM Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, that's a reasonable request. > > Should send a Notification. > If congested or would only serve to increase overload, May choose to not send > a Notification. > Not sending a Notification could result in foo > A PCC experiencing foo should to bar. > Note that when a PCE serves very many PCCs, congestion may arise without any > one PCC becoming aware of multiple unserved messages, in which case something. > > Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Leiba <[email protected]> > Sent: 16 September 2019 17:00 > To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; The IESG <[email protected]>; pce-chairs <[email protected]>; > Farrel Adrian <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth** > > Thanks for the reply, Dhruv. > > To be clear, I am NOT suggesting changing it to MUST (though that > could be a perfectly good outcome of the discussion). I am suggesting > that if it remains as SHOULD, there has to be some explanation of what > the constraints are and what interoperability or security issues could > arise if an implementation doesn't do it that way. > > Barry > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:21 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi again! > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:48 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Barry, WG, > > > > > > I saw the DISCUSS [1] in the datatracker but for some reason the email > > > never landed in my inbox or the list [2]. I am manually posting it > > > here - > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > Discuss (2019-09-16) > > > > > > Thanks for another clear document. There are some "SHOULD" key words > > > in one section that I would like to discuss, and that I think we ought > > > to be able to resolve without much difficulty: > > > > > > — Section 5.7 — > > > > > > There are various “SHOULD”s in this section, and I have the same > > > comment about all of them: BCP 14 says, about “SHOULD”, that “there > > > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a > > > particular item, but the full implications must be understood and > > > carefully weighed before choosing a different course.” I see no > > > guidance here to help the reader understand what such circumstances > > > and implications are, so I can’t see how an implementer can evaluate > > > the situation. Can you provide any help here? > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > > I checked the base RFC for PCEP - RFC 5440 where notifications are > > first defined. They do not use MUST for sending notification in the > > PCE overload case [1]. > > > > Leaving that aside, in case of auto-bandwidth feature, this > > notification is important for scaling. I am inclined to change it to > > MUST as suggested. > > > > Co-authors, WG, please speak up if you disagree!! > > > > I have incorporated all other comments in the working copy. > > > > Diff: > > https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-11&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-12.txt > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv > > > > [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.14 > > > > > Comment (2019-09-16) > > > > > > Again, these are purely editorial comments, which need no detailed > > > response; please just consider them. > > > > > > — Section 1 — > > > > > > Over time, based on the varying traffic pattern, an LSP established > > > with a certain bandwidth may require to adjust the bandwidth reserved > > > in the network dynamically. > > > > > > “may require adjustment of the bandwidth” > > > > > > This is similar to > > > the Passive stateful PCE model, while the Passive stateful PCE uses > > > path request/reply mechanism, the Active stateful PCE uses > > > report/update mechanism. > > > > > > NEW > > > This is similar to > > > the Passive stateful PCE model: while the Passive stateful PCE uses > > > a path request/reply mechanism, the Active stateful PCE uses a > > > report/update mechanism. > > > END > > > > > > This document defines the PCEP extensions needed to support Auto- > > > Bandwidth feature in a Active stateful PCE model > > > > > > NEW > > > This document defines the PCEP extensions needed to support an Auto- > > > Bandwidth feature in an Active stateful PCE model > > > END > > > > > > — Section 2.3 — > > > > > > This value indicates how many times > > > consecutively, the percentage or absolute difference > > > > > > Add a comma after “times”. > > > > > > — Section 3 — > > > > > > The PCEP speaker supporting this document must have a mechanism > > > > > > “A PCEP speaker”. > > > > > > o It is required to identify and inform the PCC, which LSPs are > > > enabled with Auto-Bandwidth feature. Not all LSPs in some > > > deployments would like their bandwidth to be dependent on the > > > real-time bandwidth usage but be constant as set by the operator. > > > > > > NEW > > > o It is necessary to identify and inform the PCC which LSPs have > > > the Auto-Bandwidth feature enabled. In some deployments, not > > > all LSPs would like their bandwidth to be dependent on the > > > real-time bandwidth usage, but would rather be constant as set > > > by the operator. > > > END > > > > > > — Section 4.1 — > > > > > > The initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including > > > zero), in practice, it can be operator expected value based on design > > > and planning. > > > > > > NEW > > > The initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including > > > zero). In practice, it can be set to an expected value based on design > > > and planning. > > > END > > > > > > — Section 4.2 — > > > > > > When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate > > > is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval (which can be > > > configured by an operator and the default value as 5 minutes) by the > > > PCC, when the PCC is the head-end node of the LSP. The traffic rate > > > samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval period (in the > > > Up or Down direction) (which can be configured by an operator and the > > > default value as 24 hours). > > > > > > NEW > > > When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate > > > is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval by the PCC, when the > > > PCC is the head-end node of the LSP. The sample interval can be > > > configured by an operator, with a default value of 5 minutes. > > > > > > The traffic rate samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval > > > period (in the Up or Down direction). The period can be configured by > > > an operator, with a default value of 24 hours. > > > END > > > > > > The PCC, in-charge of calculating the > > > bandwidth to be adjusted, can decide to adjust the bandwidth > > > > > > Remove both commas. > > > > > > Only if the difference between the > > > current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw) and the current bandwidth > > > reservation is greater than or equal to the Adjustment-Threshold > > > (percentage or absolute value) (which can be configured by an > > > operator and the default as 5 percentage), the LSP bandwidth is > > > adjusted (upsized) to the current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw). > > > > > > I’m sorry: I can’t made any sense out of this text and, thus, can’t > > > suggest a fix. Please try rephrasing this. When you do, please make > > > it more than one sentence, and please avoid consecutive parenthesized > > > phrases, which are awkward. > > > > > > However, longer > > > adjustment-interval can result in an undesirable effect > > > > > > “a longer” > > > > > > To avoid this, the > > > Auto-Bandwidth feature may pre-maturely expire the adjustment- > > > interval and adjust the LSP bandwidth > > > > > > “prematurely”, with no hyphen. > > > “adjustment interval”, with no hyphen. > > > > > > — Section 5.1 — > > > > > > o The PCEP speaker that does not recognize the extensions defined in > > > > > > “A PCEP speaker” > > > > > > o If the PCEP speaker that supports the extensions defined in this > > > > > > “If a PCEP speaker supports” > > > > > > — Section 5.2 — > > > > > > Future specification can define additional sub-TLVs. > > > > > > “specifications” > > > > > > If sub-TLVs are not present, the > > > default values as specified in this document are used or otherwise > > > based on the local policy are assumed. > > > > > > I can’t make sense of that sentence; please re-phrase it. > > > > > > — Section 5.2.3.2 — > > > > > > o Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be > > > ignored on receipt. > > > > > > Why is this “SHOULD”, when other reserved values have been “MUST”? > > > > > > (Same comment in 5.2.3.4, 5.2.5.1, 5.2.5.2, 5.2.5.3, and 5.2.5.4.) > > > > > > ==== > > > > > > [1] > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth/ballot/ > > > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/ > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
