Hi Al, Thanks for the comments. Please see inline for one comment with <RG2>...
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 1:23 PM MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rakesh, > > > > Thanks for adding the new reference to RFC7551 in the requirement we’re > discussing. > > Please see below for replies *[acm]* on this and other comments. > > > > Al > > > > *From:* Rakesh Gandhi [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:30 PM > *To:* MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Opsdir last call review of > draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-10 > > > > Thank you Al for the review. > > Please see replies inline with <RG>... > > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:23 PM Al Morton via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewer: Al Morton > Review result: Has Nits > > This document defines PCEP extensions for grouping two unidirectional > MPLS-TE LSPs into an Associated Bidirectional LSP. > Specifically, this document defines two new > Association Types, "Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association" and > "Double-sided Bidirectional LSP Association", as well as > "Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV" to carry additional > information for the association. > > Comments: > > Thank you for including Section 8, Manageability Considerations. > > I'm seeking clarification for the following requirement (although it may be > completely clear to those who are knee-deep in this terminology): > > Section 4.1 > ... > o The Tunnel (as defined in [RFC3209]) of forward and reverse LSPs > of the Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association on the > originating endpoint node MUST be the same, albeit with reverse > endpoint nodes. > > as currently written, the requirement says that > two preceding nouns MUST be the same. > > But is it: > "The Tunnel *containing the* forward and reverse LSPs..."? > Or is it, > "The *Tunnels associated with the* forward and reverse LSPs ..." ? > Or something else? > > > > <RG> How about following text? > > The Tunnel (as defined in [RFC3209]) containing the forward and reverse > LSPs of the Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association on the originating > node MUST be the same [RFC7551], both LSPs albeit with with reverse > endpoint nodes. > > *[acm] * > > *Some relevant text from 7551 seems to be:* > > *3.1.1* <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7551#section-3.1.1>*. > Single-Sided Provisioning* > > For the single-sided provisioning, the Traffic Engineering (TE) > > tunnel is configured only on one endpoint. An LSP for this tunnel is > > initiated by the initiating endpoint with the (Extended) ASSOCIATION > > and REVERSE_LSP Objects inserted in the Path message. The other > > endpoint then creates the corresponding reverse TE tunnel and signals > > the reverse LSP in response using information from the REVERSE_LSP > > Object and other objects present in the received Path message. > > > > *So would it also be correct to say:* > > > > The forward and reverse tunnels (as defined in [RFC3209]) containing the > forward and reverse LSPs of the Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association > on the originating node MUST be the same bi-directional tunnel (as > described in section 3.1.1 of [RFC7551]), albeit both LSPs have reversed > endpoint nodes. > > > > *OR,* > > The Tunnel (as defined in [RFC3209]) containing the forward and reverse > LSPs of the Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association on the originating > node MUST be have the same LSP parameters (as described in section 3.1.1 of > [RFC7551]), albeit both LSPs have reversed endpoint nodes. > > > <RG2> This looks good. Thanks, Rakesh *?* > > > > [RFC3209] simple definitions are (both seem to be unidirectional): > LSP Tunnel > An LSP which is used to tunnel below normal IP routing and/or > filtering mechanisms. > Traffic Engineered Tunnel (TE Tunnel) > A set of one or more LSP Tunnels which carries a traffic trunk. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Another request for clarification: > 5.6. State Synchronization > During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing > Bidirectional LSP Associations to the Stateful PCE as per [RFC8697]. > After the state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all stale > Bidirectional LSP Associations. > > What is the procedure to determine a stale association, a time-out > or simply the absence of a previously association in a report? > Is there a passage covering stale determination in 8697, another > reference, or a passage in the current memo that I missed? > > > > <RG> The absence of the previous association in a report. I could not find > any relevant text in the RFC 8697. How about following? > > 5.6. State Synchronization > > During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing > Bidirectional LSP Associations to the Stateful PCE as per [RFC8697]. > After the state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all previous > Bidirectional LSP Associations absent in the report. > > *[acm] * > > *thanks, that helps.* > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Editorial: > 4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV > > The "Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV" an OPTIONAL TLV for use > s/an/is an/ > > > > <RG> Ack. > > > > Thanks, > > Rakesh > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce__;!!BhdT!1WR3RmPG7BhQ_nNCb0hbDVOQZhEzQHMzuBWP0hqrdiQyj1w4AbxdWTqiWfBB$> > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
