Thanks Quan! LGTM! On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 8:40 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Dhruv, > > > Thanks for your review and suggestions! > > Please see inline with [Quan]. > > The new version is attached. Thanks! > > > Best Regards, > > Quan > > > Original > *From: *DhruvDhody <[email protected]> > *To: *熊泉00091065; > *Cc: *[email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] < > [email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>; > *Date: *2024年09月11日 23:26 > *Subject: **Re: [Pce] Re: I-D Action: > draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt* > Hi Quan, Cheng > > For this text -> > > The ASSOCIATION object should also be carried in PCInitiate > message to indicate the SR policy association parameters as per > [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp], if this path segment > identifies an SR policy. > > Note that currently we do not have a way to signal if the path segment > identifies a CP or a SR-Policy. > (1) Is it required to be explicitly signalled? > (2) Or should you simply state that the SR policy association needs to be > included if the SR path belongs to an SR Policy? > > (3) Consider using normative keywords here MUST(?) > > > [Quan] From my understanding, it is not required to be exlicitly indicated > and it may need normative keywords MUST. > > So as you suggested, this text can be revised as following. > > "The ASSOCIATION object MUST also be carried in PCInitiate message to > indicate the SR policy association parameters as > per[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp], if this SR path belongs to an > SR policy." > > What is your thought? > > == > > Consider adding this text in the Introduction -> > > Although [RFC9050] defines the PCE as the central controller (PCECC) model, > where the PCE can instruct each hop (including the egress) on the > end-to-end path, PCE (as per [RFC5040], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281]) typically > only communicates with the ingress node. However, since the path segment > identifies the SR path on the egress node, the PCE must also communicate > with the egress node. This document outlines a mechanism to use the > existing stateful message exchange with the egress node to signal both the > > SR path and the path segment. > > > [Quan] Thanks for your detailed texts. I think it is very great. It is > very appreciated. > > I suggest to add this texts to the end of the introduction section. Please > see the attachment. Thanks! > > > > == > > Thanks! > Dhruv (as a WG participant) > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 12:17 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Cheng and Co-authors, > > > > > > I have updated the draft as discussed and the diff file is attached. > > > > > Please review and comment and I will submit it before this weekend! Thanks! > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Quan > > > > > > Original > > *From: *ChengLi <[email protected]> > > *To: *熊泉00091065;[email protected] <[email protected]>; > > *Cc: *[email protected] <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > > <[email protected]>; > > *Date: *2024年09月09日 17:42 > > *Subject: **RE: [Pce] Re: I-D Action: > > draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt* > > > > Hi Quan, > > > > > > > > Do you mind to lead this update? If yes, please update the xml(You can > > download it from the datatracker) and share the diff file for authors to > > review. > > > > > > > > I am crazy busy on updating 10+ drafts recently. If you can help on this, > > I will be very appreciated! > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Cheng > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > > *Sent:* Monday, September 9, 2024 11:23 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > > *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Dhruv and Joel, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your suggestion! > > > > > > > > The adding texts in my last email mainly clarify the path segment related > > parameters (e.g association) within an SR policy. I think the PCE > > communicates with the tail instead of a notification, for example, as > > figure 3 shown, it send PCInitiate message to the egress PCC for PCE tail > > notification, for example, as figure 3 shown. > > > > > > > > I agree that the path segment is the first function that requires > > > communication with both tail and head end cause the the path segment should > > be inserted at the ingress PCC and should be recognized at the egress PCC > > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
