Hi Samuel,
Thanks for your work!
Yes, I agree with you. It seems good to me with “PCEP extensions described in
this document can be used with any Path Setup Type.” LOL.
Best Regards,
Quan
Original
From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <[email protected]>
To: 熊泉00091065;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Cc: [email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年12月15日 17:25
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Quan,
What about modifying that statement from:
“PCEP extensions described in this document are applicable to all Path Setup
Types.”
To something like:
“PCEP extensions described in this document are not restricted to any specific
Path Setup Type.”
Or
“PCEP extensions described in this document can be used with any Path Setup
Type.”
That way we will not really say that it is applicable to all, but at the same
time we will not block anybody from using it if required with any other setup
type in the future?
(I would still prefer not going into route of excluding/including specific
setup types).
Thanks a lot,
Samuel
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 7:09 AM
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Samuel,
Thanks for your detailed explanation!
I am not sure either about the PCECC and BIER-TE. To me that I may recall, for
example( maybe not right), the path-recomputation TLV is in the request message
from PCC to PCE, but there is no request message in PCECC mode. And for
BIER-TE, it may has no requirement for path recomputation.
I agree that a lot of PCEP objects/TLVs which are defined generically. But It
may be not appropriate to state that they are applicable to all Path Setup
Types. The extensions can be used when it is required in any of path setup
type.
It looks both good to me if you keep or drop the sentence. Thanks!
Best Regards,
Quan
Original
From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <[email protected]>
To: 熊泉00091065;
Cc: [email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年12月14日 18:16
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Guan,
By any chance, do you know about some specific reason why we would have to
block for example path-recomputation TLV for BIER-TE or PCECC?
To me something like ability to block path re-computation on PCE for specific
LSP is generic extension. Whether there is practical use for specific path
setup type is different question, but we don’t need to block such extension
because of that (we have a lot of PCEP objects/TLVs which are defined
generically and just not usable for LSPs of specific setup type).
I personally consider having explicit list of supported path-setup types as
less future proof (that’s why I modified based on comment from Dhruv to all
setup types as I considered it as cleaner solution).
For Strict-path flag from section 3.1 – that is slightly more questionable, but
in general we are again talking only about bringing up O flag from RP object
from stateless messages (PCReq/PCRep) to stateful messages
(PCRpt,PCUpd,PCinit). So something what was already supposed to be supported by
all setup types.
So is there really something what needs to be explicitly blocked? I can rather
imagine explicitly defining behavior for specific setup type (like BIER-TE or
PCECC) for any of those extensions if we can see added value in using it, but
behavior is not clear (that can be still done after adoption and discussion
with PCE WG or authors of RFCs/drafts introducing those setup types).
Thanks,
Samuel
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 10:22 AM
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Samuel,
Thanks for your quick reply!
Yes, I agree with you. The extensions may be applicable for
RSVP-TE,SR,SRv6,native IP, but I am not sure about it with BIER-TE and PCECC.
It works well for me to explicitly describe for each extension whether it is
generic or applicable to specific setup type.
Thanks for your work!
Best Regards,
Quan
Original
From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <[email protected]>
To: 熊泉00091065;
Cc: [email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年12月14日 16:27
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Quan,
(sorry I sent it before finishing mail)
Originally we listed explicitly only RSVP-TE and SR-TE and then we modified
based on comments from Dhruv to all setup types (attached mail).
Extensions covered in this draft were introduced to support required extensions
for CS policies, but at least some of those extensions (if specific section is
not describing something else) is potentially applicable to other setup types.
E.g. extensions from section 3.2 for blocking re-computation.
We can still drop that specific statement and explicitly describe for each
extension whether it is generic or applicable to specific setup type only.
Would that work for you?
Thanks,
Samuel
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:24 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Quan,
Originally we explicitly listed
From: Pce <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 7:53 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Dhruv,
I support the adoption of this draft. Thanks for the work from authors.
But I am confused about section 1 "PCEP extensions described in this document
are applicable to all Path Setup Types".
This draft mainly focus on the Circuit Style Policies and SR policy but path
setup types include RSVP-TE,SR,PCECC,SRv6, Native IP TE path and the newly
adopted BIER-TE.
I suggest that it is better to provide clarification about other path setup
types or remove this sentence.
Thanks,
Quan
<<Hi WG, <<This email begins the WG adoption poll for
<<draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/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 Friday 15th Dec 2023. <<Please be more vocal during WG polls! <<Thanks!
<<Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
