Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi Shaofu, Sorry for my delay. Yes, you are correct! We have updated the draft to fix this typo. Thank you so much! Cheng https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional/ There is also an HTMLized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-09 From: peng.sha...@zte.com.cn Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 9:16 AM To: Cheng Li Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com Subject: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi Cheng, Thanks for your response. For the objects of intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list, I didn't treat them as mandatory ones. But just think that the document should also give some guidance text on those non mandatory objects. However, I don't insist on this point. Perhaps without this guidance, developers can handle it correctly. BTW, I notice the updated version(08) section "3.2.2. The PCUpd Message and the PCInitiate Message" may have a spelling mistake: ... ... ignored by the PCE or the object itself conveys informational ... ... should PCE => PCC ? Regards, PSF Original From: ChengLi mailto:c...@huawei.com>> To: 彭少富10053815; Cc: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> mailto:pce@ietf.org>>;pce-cha...@ietf.org mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>>;draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org>>;Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>; Date: 2024年03月13日 11:35 Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi Shaofu, Many thanks for your supports and comments. Please see our reply below. Thanks, Cheng On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:25 PM mailto:peng.sha...@zte.com.cn>> wrote: Hi Chairs, WG, I have read this document and find it is useful and support its forwarding. Please see some comments as below: [1] In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that "When the PCEP session is established, a PCC sends an Open message with an OPEN object that contains the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, as defined in [RFC8231]." This mislead us to understand it is after the session established. May change to "During the PCEP initialization phase, ..." [Cheng]Thanks! This is a good suggestion! or change to "When the TCP connection is established, ..." [2] In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that "R (RELAX bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag indicates that the PCEP Speaker is willing to send and receive PCEP objects with the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for the stateful PCE messages." This sentence is not clear because the P and I flags fields are already included in the PCEP objects. May change to "R (RELAX bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag indicates that the PCEP Speaker is willing to handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for the stateful PCE messages." [Cheng]Another good suggestion. [3] For seciton 3.2.1. The PCRpt Message, it emphasizes that the P flag of mandatory object must be set. It may be more meaningful to provide guidance on the setting of the P flag for each object in intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list, that actually contain the constraints (e.g, bandwidth, metric) used for path computation . [Cheng] Note that all the objects in both the intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list are optional as per the RBNF and thus would be incorrect to club them with mandatory objects. Overall I don't think we can add any specifics. We can add an example but I am unsure how useful that is. [4] In 3.3.1. The PCUpd Message, it said that "Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all the constraints as per the PCEP Object that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the PCUpd message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path computation to fail along with the with the empty ERO." "with the" in this paragraph is repeated. [Cheng]Thanks! Do you think that this paragraph should be moved to section 3.2.1 The PCRpt Message ? It seems actually to describe the procesing of P flag in PCRpt. If so, may changed to [Cheng] No, we are following the format as set by RFC 5440 where this is described under the handling of I flag. Thus I would leave this unchanged. "Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all the constraints as per the PCEP Object (carried in PCRpt message) that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the subsequent PCUpd message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path c
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi Cheng, Thanks for your response. For the objects of intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list, I didn't treat them as mandatory ones. But just think that the document should also give some guidance text on those non mandatory objects. However, I don't insist on this point. Perhaps without this guidance, developers can handle it correctly. BTW, I notice the updated version(08) section "3.2.2. The PCUpd Message and the PCInitiate Message" may have a spelling mistake: ... ... ignored by the PCE or the object itself conveys informational ... ... should PCE => PCC ? Regards, PSF Original From: ChengLi To: 彭少富10053815; Cc: pce@ietf.org ;pce-cha...@ietf.org ;draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org ;Dhruv Dhody ; Date: 2024年03月13日 11:35 Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi Shaofu, Many thanks for your supports and comments. Please see our reply below. Thanks, Cheng On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:25 PM wrote: Hi Chairs, WG, I have read this document and find it is useful and support its forwarding. Please see some comments as below: [1] In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that "When the PCEP session is established, a PCC sends an Open message with an OPEN object that contains the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, as defined in [RFC8231]." This mislead us to understand it is after the session established. May change to "During the PCEP initialization phase, ..." [Cheng]Thanks! This is a good suggestion! or change to "When the TCP connection is established, ..." [2] In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that "R (RELAX bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag indicates that the PCEP Speaker is willing to send and receive PCEP objects with the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for the stateful PCE messages." This sentence is not clear because the P and I flags fields are already included in the PCEP objects. May change to "R (RELAX bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag indicates that the PCEP Speaker is willing to handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for the stateful PCE messages." [Cheng]Another good suggestion. [3] For seciton 3.2.1. The PCRpt Message, it emphasizes that the P flag of mandatory object must be set. It may be more meaningful to provide guidance on the setting of the P flag for each object in intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list, that actually contain the constraints (e.g, bandwidth, metric) used for path computation . [Cheng] Note that all the objects in both the intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list are optional as per the RBNF and thus would be incorrect to club them with mandatory objects. Overall I don't think we can add any specifics. We can add an example but I am unsure how useful that is. [4] In 3.3.1. The PCUpd Message, it said that "Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all the constraints as per the PCEP Object that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the PCUpd message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path computation to fail along with the with the empty ERO." "with the" in this paragraph is repeated. [Cheng]Thanks! Do you think that this paragraph should be moved to section 3.2.1 The PCRpt Message ? It seems actually to describe the procesing of P flag in PCRpt. If so, may changed to [Cheng] No, we are following the format as set by RFC 5440 where this is described under the handling of I flag. Thus I would leave this unchanged. "Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all the constraints as per the PCEP Object (carried in PCRpt message) that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the subsequent PCUpd message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path computation to fail along with the with the empty ERO." [5] In 3.3.2. The PCRpt Message, it said that "Note that when a PCC is unable to setup the path that meets all the parameters as per the PCEP Object that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the PCRpt message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path setup to fail along with the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV [RFC8231] indicating the reason for the failure." Dos this paragraph also be moved to section 3.2.2. The PCUpd Message and the PCInitiate Message ? It seems actually to describe the procesing of P flag in PCUpd. If so, may changed to [Cheng] Lets leave this unchanged for the same reason as above! "Note that when a PCC is unable to setup the path that meets all the parameters as per the PCEP Object (carried in PCUpd message) that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the subsequent PCRpt mess
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Thank you Chairs! We will update the draft according to the discussion in the Mailing list and post it when the window is reopen. Best Regards, Cheng From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2024 10:22 PM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi WG, The WGLC is closed. Thanks for everyone's comments and feedback. The I-D is on agenda for IETF 119 to discuss the resolution for comments received. The authors should update the draft based on the comment received and we will take the draft forward. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 8:21 PM Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote: Hi WG, Considering this is a busy time just before the IETF meeting, we are extending the WGLC for a week. Please respond by Thursday March 14th. It is important to be explicitly vocal during the last call and we request you to please respond to this thread. Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 3:02 PM Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote: Hi WG, This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi Dhruv, Yes, updated text is clear – thanks for providing it. (and sorry for delay). Regards, Samuel From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 7:06 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Cc: Cheng Li ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org; pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi Samuel, On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 6:44 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Cheng, Thanks a lot for your responses. Ack for all of them, new proposed version looks fine to me. For “3.1 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV section” I was really talking about objects defined in RFC5440, but used in stateful messages. Isn’t that behavior really “undefined” (before this draft)? Because RFC8231 is really talking only about new objects defined in that RFC (SRP, LSP,…) and not about older objects re-used in new PCEP messages. Dhruv: You are correct - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8231#section-7 How about we extend the text like this - The R flag MUST be set by both a PCC and a PCE to indicate support for the handling of the P and I flag in the PCEP common object header to allow relaxing some constraints by marking objects as optional to process. If the PCEP speaker did not set the R flag but receives PCEP objects with P or I bit set, it MUST behave as per the processing rule in [RFC8231]. Note that while [RFC8231] stated that P and I flags of the PCEP objects defined in [RFC8231] are set to 0 on and ignored on receipt, it did not say anything about already existing PCEP objects and thus the behaviour remained undefined. To safely use this future, both peers need to set the R flag. Thanks! Dhruv Thanks, Samuel From: Cheng Li mailto:c...@huawei.com>> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 4:46 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>>; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org> Cc: pce-chairs mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>; Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi Samuel, Many thanks for your quick review and support,. Please see our reply below. BTW, we post the proposed update to address your comments and Shaofu’s comments in Github: https://github.com/muzixing/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional Thanks, Cheng From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 11:00 PM To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org> Cc: pce-chairs mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>; Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi authors of this draft, I support this draft, but I still have a few minor comments: 1.Introduction section: * “Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels.” -> typo [Cheng]Ack. * “…allow a PCC to specify in a Path Computation Request (PCReq) message (sent to a PCE) whether the object must be taken into account by the PCE during path computation or is optional” -> do we even need to specify that PCReq is sent to PCE? [Cheng] I don’t see any harm . 2.1 Usage Example section: * Is really “Disjoint Association” good example as that constraint itself has T flag defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8800.html#name-disjoint-tlvs, which is allowing relaxing disjointness constraint completely as well (so P=0 for association object is not really required for that specific case) Maybe consider using some other constraint as an example, why we need this. [Cheng] A good point! I think we can remove the association example itself for simplicity's sake. 3.1 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV section * “In case the bit is unset, it indicates that the PCEP Speaker would not handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for stateful PCE messages” – At least “Introduction” section is saying that behavior was not defined before this draft was written for older PCEP objects in Stateful messages, so isn’t it actually required to fallback to original “undefined” behavior if flag is not set instead of doing fallback to “PCEP peer is not using them”? We should probably have some “backward compatibility” section as we don’t have simple way to figure out whether flag is explicitly cleared or just not supported. [Cheng] No, the introduction says - Stateful PCE [RFC8231] specified that the P and I flags of the PCEP objects defined in [RFC8231] is to be set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt, since they are exclusively related to path computation requests. Maybe the word 'clarify' later on is misleading and I have changed that everywhere! Since the behavior is not undefined any legacy imple
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi WG, The WGLC is closed. Thanks for everyone's comments and feedback. The I-D is on agenda for IETF 119 to discuss the resolution for comments received. The authors should update the draft based on the comment received and we will take the draft forward. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 8:21 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi WG, > > Considering this is a busy time just before the IETF meeting, we are > extending the WGLC for a week. Please respond by Thursday March 14th. It is > important to be explicitly vocal during the last call and we request you to > please respond to this thread. > > Thanks! > Dhruv > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 3:02 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > >> Hi WG, >> >> This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for >> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. >> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html >> >> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are >> opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your >> concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest >> version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review >> comments and nits are most welcome. >> >> The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. >> >> A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the >> last-call/adoption. >> >> Thanks, >> Dhruv & Julien >> > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi Samuel, On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 6:44 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) wrote: > Hi Cheng, > > > > Thanks a lot for your responses. Ack for all of them, new proposed version > looks fine to me. > > > > For “3.1 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV section” I was really talking about > objects defined in RFC5440, but used in stateful messages. Isn’t that > behavior really “undefined” (before this draft)? Because RFC8231 is really > talking only about new objects defined in that RFC (SRP, LSP,…) and not > about older objects re-used in new PCEP messages. > > > Dhruv: You are correct - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8231#section-7 How about we extend the text like this - The R flag MUST be set by both a PCC and a PCE to indicate support for the handling of the P and I flag in the PCEP common object header to allow relaxing some constraints by marking objects as optional to process. If the PCEP speaker did not set the R flag but receives PCEP objects with P or I bit set, it MUST behave as per the processing rule in [RFC8231]. Note that while [RFC8231] stated that P and I flags of the PCEP objects defined in [RFC8231] are set to 0 on and ignored on receipt, it did not say anything about already existing PCEP objects and thus the behaviour remained undefined. To safely use this future, both peers need to set the R flag. Thanks! Dhruv > Thanks, > > Samuel > > > > *From:* Cheng Li > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 13, 2024 4:46 AM > *To:* Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org > *Cc:* pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody < > d...@dhruvdhody.com> > *Subject:* RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 > > > > Hi Samuel, > > > > Many thanks for your quick review and support,. > > Please see our reply below. > > > > BTW, we post the proposed update to address your comments and Shaofu’s > comments in Github: > https://github.com/muzixing/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional > > > > Thanks, > > Cheng > > > > > > *From:* Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2024 11:00 PM > *To:* draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org > *Cc:* pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody < > d...@dhruvdhody.com> > *Subject:* RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 > > > > Hi authors of this draft, > > > > I support this draft, but I still have a few minor comments: > > > > 1.Introduction section: > >- “Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels.” -> typo > > [Cheng]Ack. > >- “…allow a PCC to specify in a Path Computation Request (PCReq) >message *(sent to a PCE)* whether the object must be taken into >account *by the PCE* during path computation or is optional” -> do we >even need to specify that PCReq is sent to PCE? > > [Cheng] I don’t see any harm . > > > > > > 2.1 Usage Example section: > >- Is really “Disjoint Association” good example as that constraint >itself has T flag defined in >https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8800.html#name-disjoint-tlvs, which >is allowing relaxing disjointness constraint completely as well (so P=0 for >association object is not really required for that specific case) Maybe >consider using some other constraint as an example, why we need this. > > [Cheng] A good point! I think we can remove the association example itself > for simplicity's sake. > > > > > > 3.1 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV section > >- “In case the bit is unset, it indicates that the PCEP Speaker would >not handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for stateful >PCE messages” – At least “Introduction” section is saying that >behavior was not defined before this draft was written for older PCEP >objects in Stateful messages, so isn’t it actually required to fallback to >original “undefined” behavior if flag is not set instead of doing fallback >to “PCEP peer is not using them”? We should probably have some “backward >compatibility” section as we don’t have simple way to figure out whether >flag is explicitly cleared or just not supported. > > > > [Cheng] No, the introduction says - >Stateful PCE >[RFC8231] specified that the P and I flags of the PCEP objects >defined in [RFC8231] is to be set to zero on transmission and ignored >on receipt, since they are exclusively related to path computation >requests. > > > > Maybe the word 'clarify' later on is misleading and I have changed that > everywhere! > > > > Since the behavior is not undefined any legacy implementation will always > ig
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi All, I have read the latest version and support the publication of this draft. Best regards Xinxin Yi Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Dhruv Dhody Thu, 07 March 2024 10:22 UTCShow header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/?q=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional#> Hi WG, Considering this is a busy time just before the IETF meeting, we are extending the WGLC for a week. Please respond by Thursday March 14th. It is important to be explicitly vocal during the last call and we request you to please respond to this thread. Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 3:02 PM Dhruv Dhody <mailto:<d...@dhruvdhody.com>;> wrote: > Hi WG, > > This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html > > Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed > to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If > you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and > it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and > nits are most welcome. > > The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. > > A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the > last-call/adoption. > > Thanks, > Dhruv & Julien > 如果您错误接收了该邮件,请通过电子邮件立即通知我们。请回复邮件到 hqs-s...@chinaunicom.cn,即可以退订此邮件。我们将立即将您的信息从我们的发送目录中删除。 If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately by e-mail. Please reply to hqs-s...@chinaunicom.cn ,you can unsubscribe from this mail. We will immediately remove your information from send catalogue of our. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi folks, I support the WG LC of this document and think it ready for publication. Best regards Chongfeng From: Dhruv Dhody Date: 2024-02-21 17:32 To: pce@ietf.org CC: pce-chairs; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi WG, This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi All,I read the latest version and support the publication of this draft. Best Regards,Shengnan Yue -- Forwarded message -From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 5:33 PM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi WG, This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi Cheng, Thanks a lot for your responses. Ack for all of them, new proposed version looks fine to me. For “3.1 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV section” I was really talking about objects defined in RFC5440, but used in stateful messages. Isn’t that behavior really “undefined” (before this draft)? Because RFC8231 is really talking only about new objects defined in that RFC (SRP, LSP,…) and not about older objects re-used in new PCEP messages. Thanks, Samuel From: Cheng Li Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 4:46 AM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi Samuel, Many thanks for your quick review and support,. Please see our reply below. BTW, we post the proposed update to address your comments and Shaofu’s comments in Github: https://github.com/muzixing/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional Thanks, Cheng From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 11:00 PM To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org> Cc: pce-chairs mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>; Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi authors of this draft, I support this draft, but I still have a few minor comments: 1.Introduction section: * “Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels.” -> typo [Cheng]Ack. * “…allow a PCC to specify in a Path Computation Request (PCReq) message (sent to a PCE) whether the object must be taken into account by the PCE during path computation or is optional” -> do we even need to specify that PCReq is sent to PCE? [Cheng] I don’t see any harm . 2.1 Usage Example section: * Is really “Disjoint Association” good example as that constraint itself has T flag defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8800.html#name-disjoint-tlvs, which is allowing relaxing disjointness constraint completely as well (so P=0 for association object is not really required for that specific case) Maybe consider using some other constraint as an example, why we need this. [Cheng] A good point! I think we can remove the association example itself for simplicity's sake. 3.1 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV section * “In case the bit is unset, it indicates that the PCEP Speaker would not handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for stateful PCE messages” – At least “Introduction” section is saying that behavior was not defined before this draft was written for older PCEP objects in Stateful messages, so isn’t it actually required to fallback to original “undefined” behavior if flag is not set instead of doing fallback to “PCEP peer is not using them”? We should probably have some “backward compatibility” section as we don’t have simple way to figure out whether flag is explicitly cleared or just not supported. [Cheng] No, the introduction says - Stateful PCE [RFC8231] specified that the P and I flags of the PCEP objects defined in [RFC8231] is to be set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt, since they are exclusively related to path computation requests. Maybe the word 'clarify' later on is misleading and I have changed that everywhere! Since the behavior is not undefined any legacy implementation will always ignore it and with the help of this flag in capability exchange we can be sure that there is no backward compatibility issue. 3.2.2 The PCUpd Message and the PCInitiate Message * Is it really required to assume P flag set to all PCEP objects in PCUpd/PCinit messages? Consider PCE including for example accumulated metric or constraints used in the path-computation for policies configured on PCC – why PCC would need to support all of those objects even if really just “SRP/LSP/ERO” is really required in most of the cases? I would say that even “SHOULD” may be too strong here. [Cheng] I can soften this to say - "On a PCEP session on which R bit was set by both peers, the PCE SHOULD set the P flag by default, unless a local configuration/policy indicates that some constraints (corresponding PCEP objects) can be marked as optional and could be ignored by the PCE or the object itself conveys informational parameters that can be safely ignored." 3.4 Delegation * “Note that for the delegated LSPs, the PCE can update and mark some objects as ignored even when the PCC had set the P flag during delegation. Similarly, the PCE can update…” – Is there valid use-case for this behavior? At least to me it seems that it actually opening doors for bugs/misinterpretation rather than really adding any value. [Cheng] There was feedback for this to keep it aligned with the definition of delegation in RFC 8231 where PCE ought to have control
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi WG, I have read the draft and support its publication. It is a simple and useful extension. Thanks, Hang From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 5:33 PM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi WG, This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi WG, I have read through this draft. The extensions are simple and efficient. I support that it is ready to be published. Cheers, Mao 发件人: Dhruv Dhody 发送时间: 2024年2月21日 17:33 收件人: pce@ietf.org 抄送: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org 主题: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi WG, This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi WG, I have read the latest version of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 and I think it is ready for publication. So I support the last call of it. Thanks, Ka From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 5:33 PM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi WG, This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi Samuel, Many thanks for your quick review and support,. Please see our reply below. BTW, we post the proposed update to address your comments and Shaofu’s comments in Github: https://github.com/muzixing/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional Thanks, Cheng From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 11:00 PM To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi authors of this draft, I support this draft, but I still have a few minor comments: 1.Introduction section: * “Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels.” -> typo [Cheng]Ack. * “…allow a PCC to specify in a Path Computation Request (PCReq) message (sent to a PCE) whether the object must be taken into account by the PCE during path computation or is optional” -> do we even need to specify that PCReq is sent to PCE? [Cheng] I don’t see any harm . 2.1 Usage Example section: * Is really “Disjoint Association” good example as that constraint itself has T flag defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8800.html#name-disjoint-tlvs, which is allowing relaxing disjointness constraint completely as well (so P=0 for association object is not really required for that specific case) Maybe consider using some other constraint as an example, why we need this. [Cheng] A good point! I think we can remove the association example itself for simplicity's sake. 3.1 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV section * “In case the bit is unset, it indicates that the PCEP Speaker would not handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for stateful PCE messages” – At least “Introduction” section is saying that behavior was not defined before this draft was written for older PCEP objects in Stateful messages, so isn’t it actually required to fallback to original “undefined” behavior if flag is not set instead of doing fallback to “PCEP peer is not using them”? We should probably have some “backward compatibility” section as we don’t have simple way to figure out whether flag is explicitly cleared or just not supported. [Cheng] No, the introduction says - Stateful PCE [RFC8231] specified that the P and I flags of the PCEP objects defined in [RFC8231] is to be set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt, since they are exclusively related to path computation requests. Maybe the word 'clarify' later on is misleading and I have changed that everywhere! Since the behavior is not undefined any legacy implementation will always ignore it and with the help of this flag in capability exchange we can be sure that there is no backward compatibility issue. 3.2.2 The PCUpd Message and the PCInitiate Message * Is it really required to assume P flag set to all PCEP objects in PCUpd/PCinit messages? Consider PCE including for example accumulated metric or constraints used in the path-computation for policies configured on PCC – why PCC would need to support all of those objects even if really just “SRP/LSP/ERO” is really required in most of the cases? I would say that even “SHOULD” may be too strong here. [Cheng] I can soften this to say - "On a PCEP session on which R bit was set by both peers, the PCE SHOULD set the P flag by default, unless a local configuration/policy indicates that some constraints (corresponding PCEP objects) can be marked as optional and could be ignored by the PCE or the object itself conveys informational parameters that can be safely ignored." 3.4 Delegation * “Note that for the delegated LSPs, the PCE can update and mark some objects as ignored even when the PCC had set the P flag during delegation. Similarly, the PCE can update…” – Is there valid use-case for this behavior? At least to me it seems that it actually opening doors for bugs/misinterpretation rather than really adding any value. [Cheng] There was feedback for this to keep it aligned with the definition of delegation in RFC 8231 where PCE ought to have control over all parameters including this relaxation. 7.1 Control of Function and Policy * “An operator MUST be allowed to configure the capability to support relaxation of constraints in the stateful PCEP message exchange.” – So any implementation which would decide to enable it by default in that PCEP session is not RFC complaint? Isn’t that too strict? [Cheng] This can be changed to SHOULD -> "An implementation supporting this document SHOULD allow configuration of the capability..." Thanks a lot, Samuel From: Pce mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 10:33 AM To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Cc: pce-chairs mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>>; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-statefu
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi Shaofu, Many thanks for your supports and comments. Please see our reply below. Thanks, Cheng On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:25 PM mailto:peng.sha...@zte.com.cn>> wrote: Hi Chairs, WG, I have read this document and find it is useful and support its forwarding. Please see some comments as below: [1] In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that "When the PCEP session is established, a PCC sends an Open message with an OPEN object that contains the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, as defined in [RFC8231]." This mislead us to understand it is after the session established. May change to "During the PCEP initialization phase, ..." [Cheng]Thanks! This is a good suggestion! or change to "When the TCP connection is established, ..." [2] In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that "R (RELAX bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag indicates that the PCEP Speaker is willing to send and receive PCEP objects with the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for the stateful PCE messages." This sentence is not clear because the P and I flags fields are already included in the PCEP objects. May change to "R (RELAX bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag indicates that the PCEP Speaker is willing to handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for the stateful PCE messages." [Cheng]Another good suggestion. [3] For seciton 3.2.1. The PCRpt Message, it emphasizes that the P flag of mandatory object must be set. It may be more meaningful to provide guidance on the setting of the P flag for each object in intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list, that actually contain the constraints (e.g, bandwidth, metric) used for path computation . [Cheng] Note that all the objects in both the intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list are optional as per the RBNF and thus would be incorrect to club them with mandatory objects. Overall I don't think we can add any specifics. We can add an example but I am unsure how useful that is. [4] In 3.3.1. The PCUpd Message, it said that "Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all the constraints as per the PCEP Object that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the PCUpd message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path computation to fail along with the with the empty ERO." "with the" in this paragraph is repeated. [Cheng]Thanks! Do you think that this paragraph should be moved to section 3.2.1 The PCRpt Message ? It seems actually to describe the procesing of P flag in PCRpt. If so, may changed to [Cheng] No, we are following the format as set by RFC 5440 where this is described under the handling of I flag. Thus I would leave this unchanged. "Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all the constraints as per the PCEP Object (carried in PCRpt message) that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the subsequent PCUpd message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path computation to fail along with the with the empty ERO." [5] In 3.3.2. The PCRpt Message, it said that "Note that when a PCC is unable to setup the path that meets all the parameters as per the PCEP Object that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the PCRpt message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path setup to fail along with the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV [RFC8231] indicating the reason for the failure." Dos this paragraph also be moved to section 3.2.2. The PCUpd Message and the PCInitiate Message ? It seems actually to describe the procesing of P flag in PCUpd. If so, may changed to [Cheng] Lets leave this unchanged for the same reason as above! "Note that when a PCC is unable to setup the path that meets all the parameters as per the PCEP Object (carried in PCUpd message) that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the subsequent PCRpt message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path setup to fail along with the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV [RFC8231] indicating the reason for the failure." [6] In section 3.4. Delegation, it said that "Note that for the delegated LSPs, the PCE can update and mark some objects as ignored even when the PCC had set the P flag during delegation. Similarly, the PCE can update and mark some object as a must to process even when the PCC had not set the P flag during delegation." I think this statement conflicts with the previous section 3.2 (which gives the impression that it is actually an active state of PCE mode, which naturally includes delegation). But this paragraph makes P flag no longer obeyed by PCE, which is confusing. Maybe I misunderstood. [Cheng] I can see how this could be confusing. I propose moving section 3.4 under 3.2.1 and doing some rewording. And change MUST to SHOULD in section 3.2. Thanks! Regards, PSF Original From: DhruvDhody mailto:d...
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi authors of this draft, I support this draft, but I still have a few minor comments: 1.Introduction section: * “Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels.” -> typo * “…allow a PCC to specify in a Path Computation Request (PCReq) message (sent to a PCE) whether the object must be taken into account by the PCE during path computation or is optional” -> do we even need to specify that PCReq is sent to PCE? 2.1 Usage Example section: * Is really “Disjoint Association” good example as that constraint itself has T flag defined in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8800.html#name-disjoint-tlvs, which is allowing relaxing disjointness constraint completely as well (so P=0 for association object is not really required for that specific case) Maybe consider using some other constraint as an example, why we need this. 3.1 STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV section * “In case the bit is unset, it indicates that the PCEP Speaker would not handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for stateful PCE messages” – At least “Introduction” section is saying that behavior was not defined before this draft was written for older PCEP objects in Stateful messages, so isn’t it actually required to fallback to original “undefined” behavior if flag is not set instead of doing fallback to “PCEP peer is not using them”? We should probably have some “backward compatibility” section as we don’t have simple way to figure out whether flag is explicitly cleared or just not supported. 3.2.2 The PCUpd Message and the PCInitiate Message * Is it really required to assume P flag set to all PCEP objects in PCUpd/PCinit messages? Consider PCE including for example accumulated metric or constraints used in the path-computation for policies configured on PCC – why PCC would need to support all of those objects even if really just “SRP/LSP/ERO” is really required in most of the cases? I would say that even “SHOULD” may be too strong here. 3.4 Delegation * “Note that for the delegated LSPs, the PCE can update and mark some objects as ignored even when the PCC had set the P flag during delegation. Similarly, the PCE can update…” – Is there valid use-case for this behavior? At least to me it seems that it actually opening doors for bugs/misinterpretation rather than really adding any value. 7.1 Control of Function and Policy * “An operator MUST be allowed to configure the capability to support relaxation of constraints in the stateful PCEP message exchange.” – So any implementation which would decide to enable it by default in that PCEP session is not RFC complaint? Isn’t that too strict? Thanks a lot, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 10:33 AM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi WG, This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi WG, I have read the document and think it is ready for publication, thanks. Best wishes, Haomian (as co-author) From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 5:33 PM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi WG, This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Oh no! It seems like this email is missing over the email sea. Crazy busy weeks before IETF Meeting. Yes, I support the publication of this draft as one of the author. Will response to the comments ASAP after the IETF119 meeting.; Thanks, Cheng From: Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 5:33 PM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 Hi WG, This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi WG, Considering this is a busy time just before the IETF meeting, we are extending the WGLC for a week. Please respond by Thursday March 14th. It is important to be explicitly vocal during the last call and we request you to please respond to this thread. Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 3:02 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi WG, > > This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html > > Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed > to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If > you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and > it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and > nits are most welcome. > > The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. > > A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the > last-call/adoption. > > Thanks, > Dhruv & Julien > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07
Hi Chairs, WG, I have read this document and find it is useful and support its forwarding. Please see some comments as below: [1] In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that "When the PCEP session is established, a PCC sends an Open message with an OPEN object that contains the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, as defined in [RFC8231]." This mislead us to understand it is after the session established. May change to "During the PCEP initialization phase, ..." or change to "When the TCP connection is established, ..." [2] In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that "R (RELAX bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag indicates that the PCEP Speaker is willing to send and receive PCEP objects with the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for the stateful PCE messages." This sentence is not clear because the P and I flags fields are already included in the PCEP objects. May change to "R (RELAX bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag indicates that the PCEP Speaker is willing to handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header for the stateful PCE messages." [3] For seciton 3.2.1. The PCRpt Message, it emphasizes that the P flag of mandatory object must be set. It may be more meaningful to provide guidance on the setting of the P flag for each object in intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list, that actually contain the constraints (e.g, bandwidth, metric) used for path computation . [4] In 3.3.1. The PCUpd Message, it said that "Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all the constraints as per the PCEP Object that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the PCUpd message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path computation to fail along with the with the empty ERO." "with the" in this paragraph is repeated. Do you think that this paragraph should be moved to section 3.2.1 The PCRpt Message ? It seems actually to describe the procesing of P flag in PCRpt. If so, may changed to "Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all the constraints as per the PCEP Object (carried in PCRpt message) that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the subsequent PCUpd message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path computation to fail along with the with the empty ERO." [5] In 3.3.2. The PCRpt Message, it said that "Note that when a PCC is unable to setup the path that meets all the parameters as per the PCEP Object that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the PCRpt message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path setup to fail along with the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV [RFC8231] indicating the reason for the failure." Dos this paragraph also be moved to section 3.2.2. The PCUpd Message and the PCInitiate Message ? It seems actually to describe the procesing of P flag in PCUpd. If so, may changed to "Note that when a PCC is unable to setup the path that meets all the parameters as per the PCEP Object (carried in PCUpd message) that cannot be ignored (i.e. P flag is set), the subsequent PCRpt message MAY optionally include the PCEP Objects that caused the path setup to fail along with the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV [RFC8231] indicating the reason for the failure." [6] In section 3.4. Delegation, it said that "Note that for the delegated LSPs, the PCE can update and mark some objects as ignored even when the PCC had set the P flag during delegation. Similarly, the PCE can update and mark some object as a must to process even when the PCC had not set the P flag during delegation." I think this statement conflicts with the previous section 3.2 (which gives the impression that it is actually an active state of PCE mode, which naturally includes delegation). But this paragraph makes P flag no longer obeyed by PCE, which is confusing. Maybe I misunderstood. Regards, PSF Original From: DhruvDhody To: pce@ietf.org ; Cc: pce-chairs ;draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org ; Date: 2024年02月21日 17:33 Subject: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07 ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce Hi WG, This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-07.html Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 13 March 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien___ Pce mailing list Pc