Hi Gyan, Please check inline below.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:08 AM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ketan > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:05 AM Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I do not believe this document is ready for adoption. I believe the WG >> perhaps needs to discuss some basic concepts before taking up this work. >> >> Please note that I do not object to (what I infer is) the motivation for >> this work. This document is not (yet) a good starting point for this work. >> >> 1) We need a SPRING WG document that covers the considerations related to >> Path MTU for SR Policies. We do not have such a document today. While this >> document does touch upon certain aspects, it is inadequate. This document >> should focus more on the PCEP protocol aspects and rely on the existing >> RSVP-TE spec RFC3209 and TBD for SR Policy for the application to the >> respective constructs. Note that draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu >> introduces this PMTU for BGP SRTE [*] >> > > Gyan> As Spring SR Policy draft has already been submitted for > publication, could we add verbiage to the IDR SR Policy draft and as this > draft is BGP SR policy related PCE extension for PMTUD similar to the IDR > SR policy PMTU draft mentioned. > KT> I do not see these mechanisms as being protocol specific and hence do not seem right for either PCEP or BGP documents. > I read the comments from the IDR adoption call as it relates to SR and > PMTU. I think we all agree that the goal of this and the IDR drafts are > warranted. However as PMTUD even as it relates to SR is not overly > complicated that we need a draft to explain what constitutes the total SR > packet size, as SR is not any different from any other technology from a > packet sizing perspective. The same concept that the lowest MTU link > along a path is the maximum MTU PMTU for the path is valid and that is the > basis for PMTU. I don’t think this should hold up the adoption call. > KT> We've had this conversation in the IDR WG during the IDR document adoption and we don't yet have a SPRING document. I am not sure if the PCEP work proceeds in a similar manner. I will leave it to the WG chairs' judgment on this matter. Thanks, Ketan > >> 2) There seems to be some degree of mixup between the concept of (a) >> constraint for the path and (b) the reporting of the calculated path MTU of >> the path. Both are perhaps needed, but we need them to be unambiguous and >> differentiated. I would think that (a) is also very useful. And I am not >> sure if it is appropriate to refer to (b) as a "metric" - isn't it a >> property? >> > > > >> >> 3) This is applicable for both RSVP-TE and SR Policy. >> > > Gyan> Agreed > >> >> [*] What I see is that some amount of uncoordinated protocol spec >> development related to SPRING constructs is happening in the >> protocol-specific WGs (PCE & IDR) without the base work being done in the >> SPRING WG. I had raised this point during the IDR document adoption as >> well: >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZrN1-Uw1ggyxKeltBICmcthjymM/ >> >> Thanks, >> Ketan >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 9:40 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi WG, >>> >>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-05. >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu/ >>> >>> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - >>> Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you >>> willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. >>> >>> Please respond by Monday 11th April 2022. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Dhruv & Julien >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pce mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> > -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions A**rchitect * > > *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* > > > > *M 301 502-1347* > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
