Hi Hooman,
(1) As per
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-08#section-4.5.2,
what you want is to use END-POINTS Object as defined in RFC 8306. You are
adding a new Leaf type.
The corresponding IANA section refers to Generalized END-POINTS Objects
(RFC 8779) only. Note that RFC 8306 never created a registry for Leaf-type.
Thus, this document should create a registry for it. Here is my suggested
text -
9.2. Endpoint Type
[RFC8306] specified the P2MP END-POINTS object but did not create a
registry for the 32-bit Leaf type field. This document establishes
the registry and populates it with values from [RFC8306] and adds a
new Leaf type. IANA is requested to create a new "Endpoint Leaf
Types" registry with the allocation policy as IETF Review [RFC8126].
This new registry contains the following values:
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 1 | New leaves to add | RFC 8306 |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 2 | Old leaves to remove | RFC 8306 |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 3 | Old leaves whose path can | RFC 8306 |
| | be modified/reoptimized | |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 4 | Old leaves whose path must | RFC 8306 |
| | be left unchanged | |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
| 5 | All old leaves overwritten | This document |
| | and replaced with the new | |
+----------+----------------------------+-----------------+
To keep it consistent with the Generalized Endpoint Types [RFC8779],
this draft defines a new Endpoint Type in the "Generalized Endpoint
Types" registry as follows:
+-----------+---------------------+-----------------+
| Value | Type | Reference |
+-----------+---------------------+-----------------+
| TBD2 | Point-to-Multipoint | This document |
| | with leaf type 5 | |
+-----------+---------------------+-----------------+
The Authors are requesting value 5 for this new endpoint type.
(2) There is no need for 2 sections 9.3 and 9.4 when both of them are
allocated in the same TLV registries, please merge them -
9.3. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
This draft extends the PCEP OPEN object by defining a new optional
TLV to indicate the PCE's capability to perform SR-P2MP path
computation.
Further, this draft defines two new TLVs for Identifying the P2MP
Policy and the Replication segment with IPv4 or IPv6 root address.
IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the IANA Registry
"PCEP TLV Type Indicators"
+------------+------------------------------+----------------+
| TLV Type | Description | Reference |
| Value | | |
+------------+------------------------------+----------------+
| TBD3 | SR-P2MP-POLICY-CAPABILITY | This document |
+------------+------------------------------+----------------+
| TBD4 | IPV4-SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID TLV | This document |
+------------+------------------------------+----------------+
| TBD5 | IPV6-SR-P2MP-INSTANCE-ID TLV | This document |
+------------+------------------------------+----------------+
(3) Section 9.5 identifies a wrong registry, please fix this as -
9.4. New CCI Object Type
This draft defines a new CCI Object type SR P2MP Policy.
IANA is requested to allocate new codepoints in the "PCEP Objects"
sub-registry as follows:
IANA is requested to allocate a new CCI Object type from the "CCI
Object-Type" Class in the PCEP Objects table.
+-------------+----------------------+----------------+
| Object Class| Name | Reference |
| Value | | |
+-------------+----------------------+----------------+
| 44 | CCI Object | |
| | Object-Type | |
| | TBD6: SR P2MP Policy | This document |
+-------------+----------------------+----------------+
----
I also urge you to work with your shepherd and clean up the document. I
find it hard to review.
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 6:25 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-08.txt is now available. It
> is a
> work item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of the IETF.
>
> Title: PCEP extensions for p2mp sr policy
> Authors: Hooman Bidgoli
> Daniel Voyer
> Saranya Rajarathinam
> Anuj Budhiraja
> Rishabh
> Siva Sivabalan
> Name: draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-08.txt
> Pages: 46
> Dates: 2024-07-30
>
> Abstract:
>
> SR P2MP policies are set of policies that enable architecture for
> P2MP service delivery. This document specifies extensions to the
> Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a
> stateful PCE to compute and initiate P2MP paths from a Root to a set
> of Leaves.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy/
>
> There is also an HTMLized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-08
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-08
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
