Hi Dhruv, It is more clear now, thanks. The P=1 basically means to allocate from PCE controlled space, while P=0 means to allocate from PCC controlled space.
I would just suggest to make the last sentence more specific to reflect this: Current: "PCE would directly allocate the label from the PCE-controlled label space using P=1 as described above, whereas PCE would request for the allocation of a specific BSID with P=0 as described in Section 4." Proposed: "PCE would allocate the label from the PCE-controlled label space using P=1 as described above, whereas PCE would request for the allocation from the PCC-controlled label space using P=0 as described in Section 4." Thanks, Mike. -----Original Message----- From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:24 AM To: Siva Sivabalan <[email protected]> Cc: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; pce-chairs <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the BSID draft Hi Siva, I had a discussion with Mike, I explained that there are two different cases here: (1) PCE requests a specific binding value to be allocated by PCC (section 4) (2) PCE controls the label space and allocates the label directly (new section 7, text moved from PCECC I-D) For (1) there is no dependency on PCECC capability! Only for (2), which is a PCECC operation, the PCECC capability is checked. The P flag helps to easily distinguish between the two cases. Again, this is not a new feature, this was already part of a post-WG-LC I-D, we are moving the text to BSID I-D here when the issue was discovered during the RTGDIR review. I added some more clarifications based on your and Mike's suggestions. Here is the latest working copy - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt If there is any text that is not clear or a change you would like to see, please let me know. Thanks! Dhruv (as a WG member) On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 8:28 PM Siva Sivabalan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dhruv, > > I also agree with Mike. Let's not make BSID ID dependent on PCECC capability. > > Thanks, > Siva > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:58 AM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Dhruv, >> >> My concern is about a PCC that DOES support PCE assigned BSID, but that DOES >> NOT support PCECC. Your latest diff still says that PCECC capability is >> needed for this PCC to be able to make use of PCE assigned BSID. >> >> IMHO it should not be necessary to bring in support for PCECC, which is >> quite a large extension, just to allow a PCE to send down a BSID label to >> the PCC. PCE may have some other mechanism to figure out whether a BSID >> label is allocated or not. >> >> Thanks, >> Mike. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 11:38 AM >> To: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <[email protected]> >> Cc: Siva Sivabalan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; pce-chairs >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the >> BSID draft >> >> Hi Siva, Mike, >> >> I have made an update to add more clarity in section 7. >> >> Commit: >> https://github.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/commit/5c7e4625e8491fdece9007bec07 >> 6a654bbeeaf93 >> Diff: >> https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce >> -binding-label-sid-05&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdho >> dy/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt >> >> Just to clarify, this is not a new requirement, all that is being done is >> moving the text from the PCECC I-D (which was already in post-WGLC) to the >> BSID I-D. It is also marked that this feature is optional and used only in >> the case the implementation also supports PCECC operations and no change is >> made to any existing operations that could lead to any backward >> compatibility issues. >> >> Thanks! >> Dhruv (as a WG member) >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:43 PM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I’m also concerned about having PCECC as a requirement for anything in >> > that draft. It would break backward compatibility. >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Mike. >> > >> > >> > >> > From: Pce <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Siva Sivabalan >> > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 7:13 PM >> > To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> >> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> > pce-chairs <[email protected]> >> > Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to >> > the BSID draft >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi Dhruv and all: >> > >> > >> > >> > Section 7 states: >> > >> > Section 4 includes a case where a specified value for the binding >> > label/SID is requested to be allocated by the PCC. >> > >> > >> > >> > Section 4 (of v5) states: >> > >> > If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it >> > may do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a >> > TE-PATH- >> > >> > BINDING TLV. >> > >> > >> > >> > Could we please add a bit more clarity to the motivation for the proposed >> > change ? >> > >> > >> > >> > Also, we may want to indicate that how a PCE figures out the available >> > labels on a PCC, etc, is outside the scope of this ID. >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Siva >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 8:41 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi WG, Authors, >> > >> > As part of the handling of RTGDIR comments [1] for the PCECC I-D >> > [2], it was discovered that it is a better idea to handle the >> > Binding SID allocation by the PCE in the BSID I-D [3]. Julien and I agree. >> > >> > Also, it makes sense to move the new P-flag in the LSP object here >> > (from path segment WG I-D [4]). >> > >> > Cheng and I have this proposed update - >> > >> > Diff: >> > https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-p >> > ce- >> > binding-label-sid-05&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdh >> > ody /ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt >> > >> > Please let us know if anyone has any concerns with this approach. >> > This draft is in our WG LC Queue [5]. >> > >> > Thanks! >> > Dhruv/Cheng >> > >> > [1] >> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/4n6FpBoDHjnGppKH4bcVo >> > tUu >> > _hE/ [2] >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for- >> > pce >> > -controller/ [3] >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid/ >> > [4] >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment/ >> > [5] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/wiki/WikiStart#WGLastCallQueue _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
