Hi all, I like the PcOpen + PcNotify idea, mainly because I hope we can generically define a pattern of PcOpen content refresh without the need for a session flap. Using PcOpen+PcNotify also becomes a bit more consistent in approach with the similar state synchronization proposal for add/delete PcOpen between PCE’s. I do not think we should add (even partial) dependency on PCEP-LS to solve that generalized problem. I also do not think we should overload PcRpt since the use of PcRpt is well understood to be about LSP state, and mucking with it to fit other content feels like it's being overloaded.
Therefore I think it comes down to a new message (PcOpenRefresh?) or leveraging PcNotify. I currently don't see a block on using PcNotify for this. To keep it simple I think the TLVs in the PcNotify should be a snapshot equal to the same content as if this was PcOpen upon connect (i.e don't send diff). In other words as an example with draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space, if someone adds a new range to the PCC, the PcNotify would carry a LABEL-CONTROLS-SPACE-TLV which contains both existing and new ranges and not build in add/remove/diff semantics inside of the TLV itself. Thanks Andrew From: Cheng Li <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 6:28 AM To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, pce-chairs <[email protected]>, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Pce] Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded? CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Yes, I also think this combination is better. Option 1 Open msg can be used for initial report, and the rest update can be reported by the Notification msg. Already recorded this in the slide. Cheng From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 11:34 AM To: Cheng Li <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; pce-chairs <[email protected]>; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pce] Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded? Hi, Samuel made a suggestion to combine the options of using Open and Notification together, I have now captured that in the notes page - https://notes.ietf.org/draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space?view Feel free to add to the discussion here or on the notes page. Thanks! Dhruv On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 2:53 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Cheng, To facilitate this discussion I have created a notes page - https://notes.ietf.org/draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space?view that documents the various options. WG, Feel free to add things there but add your name for easy tracking. You can also add your preference for a solution and with reasoning at the bottom or simply reply on this thread and I can keep the notes page updated. Hope the WG finds this useful and it helps in converging on a way forward... Thanks! Dhruv On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:46 AM Cheng Li <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Guys， Thank you so much for your helpful review and comments of our draft draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space. In the WG adoption, I can summarize our discussion into the below bullets, hope they are correct, 1. The draft is useful, and the mechanism defined in the draft is needed, we should work on it. (Thanks!) 2. We need to discuss the where the info should be carried in the PCEP. Open Object seems not so good ☹ 3. TLV encoding should be updated to be more generic or let's avoid the generic description and define specific sub-TLVs as needed. I see the reasons why we decided to carry the info in PCEP Open Object, because it is a device-wide configuration info, which should not be modified in the running state. We may face a lot of trouble of removing some IDs and then modify the range in a running network. However, we may also need to handle the negotiation between PCC and PCE? Therefore, I am also concerning about this. I like to hear your voice on this, which object/msg is appropriate to carry the info? I am open with other options. Possible options could be • Open message • Use PCEP-LS encoding and make this a node attribute • New type of notification • New message/object Once we get the conclusion of this, we can go to the bullet 3, which is much easier that bullet 2. IMHO, I will prefer to define sub-TLVs one by one, this can decouple the relations between IDs, though we may need to delete the 'generic' words. Thoughts? Cheng _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
