Re: [Pce] WG Adoption Call for draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6
I support the adoption and willing to work on it. The Function Code section is not well specified and should refer to draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming that has requested new IANA sub-registry "SRv6 Endpoint Behaviors”. In general it is unclear why do we need them and what does “maintainability” mean in that context. Cheers, Jeff On Feb 21, 2019, 10:47 PM -0800, Dhruv Dhody , wrote: > Hi WG, > > Please read & review draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-04 [1] and > send your comments to the mailing list. > > 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? Do you plan to implement it? > > This poll will run until 8th March. > > Thanks, > PCE Chairs > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/?include_text=1 > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-09
Reviewer: Mike McBride Review result: Has Nits I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-09 Reviewer: Mike McBride Review Date: 25 February 2019 IETF LC End Date: N/A (in preparation for IETF LC) Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: This document is near ready for publication. It has nits that should be considered prior to publication. Comments: Great job on the draft and congrats on near publication. It was a tad difficult to follow certain areas of the document and I therefore offer suggestions to improve the readability. Major issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Nits for your consideration: 1. Page 4: Replace: A child PCE may be responsible for a single domain or multiple domains, it is used to compute the intra-domain path based on its own domain topology information. With: A child PCE may be responsible for single or multiple domains and is used to compute..." 2. Page 4: Replace: In addition, the parent PCE may be requested to provide only the sequence of domains to a child PCE so that alternative inter-domain path computation procedures, including Per Domain (PD) [RFC5152] and Backwards Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) [RFC5441] may be used. With: The parent PCE may be requested to provide only the sequence of domains to a child PCE so that alternative inter-domain path computation procedures, including Per Domain (PD) [RFC5152] and Backwards Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) [RFC5441], may be used. 3. Page 5: Replace: This could be done via With: Move formatting to the right to remain consistent in this section. Under "Learning". 4. Page 5: Replace: The hierarchical relationship model is described in [RFC6805]. It is applicable to environments with small groups of domains where visibility from the ingress LSRs is limited. As highlighted in [RFC7399] applying the hierarchical PCE model to large groups of domains such as the Internet is not considered feasible or desirable. With: Move formatting to the right to remain consistent in this section. Under "Stateful". 5. Page 10: Replace: The Domain-ID TLV when used in the OPEN object, identify the domains served by the PCE. With: Add a comma after TLV s/identify/identifies 6. Page 12: Replace: The usage of Domain-ID TLV carried in an OPEN object is used to indicate a (list of) managed domains and is described in Section 3.3.1. This TLV when carried in an RP object, indicates the destination domain ID. With: Use of commas. Comma after 'Domain-ID TLV' and 'object'. And after 'This TLV'. 7. Page 12: Replace: If a Domain-id TLV is used in the RP object, and the destination is not actually in the indicated domain, then the parent PCE should respond with a NO-PATH object and NO-PATH VECTOR TLV should be used, and a new bit number is assigned to indicate "Destination not found in the indicated domain" (see Section 3.7). With: End the sentence after the second 'used' and then start the new sentence with 'And a new bit...' 8. Page 14: Replace: The domain count metric type of the METRIC object encodes the number of domain crossed in the path. With: change the second 'domain' to 'domains' or maybe 'domain's'. 9. Page 14: Replace: A PCC or child PCE MAY use these metric in PCReq message for an inter-domain path computation meeting the number of domain or border nodes crossing requirement. With: Change 'these' to 'the' 10. Page 15: Replace: The Parent PCE MAY use these metric in a PCRep message along with a NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot compute a path meeting this constraint. With: change 'these' to 'the' or change to 'PCRep messages'. 11. Page 16: Replace: The child PCE MAY also report its list of domain IDs to the parent PCE by specifying them in the Domain-ID TLVs in the OPEN object carried in the Open message during the PCEP session initialization procedure. With: This is a tough sentence to follow. With the following punctuation changes is the intention still correct?: "The child PCE MAY also report its list of domain IDs, to the parent PCE, by specifying them in the Domain-ID TLVs in the OPEN object. This object is carried in the OPEN message during the PCEP session initialization procedure." 12. Page 16: Replace: When a specific child PCE sends a PCReq to a peer PCE that requires parental
Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your comments. All the nits pointed out are corrected. We will
upload the revision once we have resolved Adrian's second comments.
Best regards,
Young
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of dan...@olddog.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 4:37 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn
Hi All,
Just saw the I-D hit WG LC and thought I would have a quick scan of the latest
version.
Overall, a really useful document. It was intended to highlight the role of the
PCE (including ancillary components) in the context of ACTN, and it delivers.
The document is well written and easy to read, and certainly ready to move
forward. However, I did find a few minor NITS which I have listed below. These
can be fixed at some point in the process.
Abstract
s/is component /is a component/
---
1.1.3. Relationship to PCE Based Central Control s/The section 2.1.3 of
/Section 2.1.3 of/
---
1.3 PCE and ACTN
s/describes how the PCE architecture /describes how PCE architecture/
---
2. Architectural Considerations
s/It should be noted that, this document /It should be noted that this document/
---
2.1. Multi Domain Coordination via Hierarchy s/describes a hierarchy of PCE
with Parent PCE coordinating /describes a hierarchy of PCEs with the Parent PCE
coordinating s/multi-domain path computation function between Child PCE(s)
/multi-domain path computation function between Child PCEs.
---
3. Interface Considerations
s/In case of hierarchy of MDSC /In the case of hierarchy MDSCs s/The Section 4
describes /Section 4 describes/
---
4. Realizing ACTN with PCE (and PCEP)
s/each with its own PNC and a MDSC at top / each with its own PNC and an MDSC
on top s/per the example in the Figure 2 /per the example in Figure 2/ s/Any
change in the per-domain LSP are reported to the MDSC /Any change in the
per-domain LSP is reported to the MDSC/ s/Similarly PNC would convert the path
received /Similarly, a PNC would convert the path received/
---
6. Security Considerations
s/It also list various security considerations /It also lists various security
considerations/
---
Need to be consistent with the use of "Per Domain", "Per domain" and "per
domain"
---
Need to be consistent with the use of "Child PCE" and "child pce"
---
Need to be consistent with the use of "multi-domain" and "multi domain",
including section titles ("2.1. Multi Domain Coordination via Hierarchy")
---
A few plural instances should be fixed, I don't think the RFC editors like the
use of "(s)"
---
BR, Dan.
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG Last Call completed for draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn
Dear WG Members, I reviewed this draft and believe it is ready to move to the next stage. Thanks, Peter == Dr. / Director Peter(Choongul) Park Biz Total Solution(BTS) Proj., KT Infra Lab. 34046 70 Yuseong-daero 1689beon-gil Yuseong-gu Daejeon Korea(South) T: +82.10.2879.7463 / F: +82.42.870.8779 -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 6:54 AM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call completed for draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn Hi, The WG last call completed without any dissent, but with only a few comments of support. There were some issues raised (including from Dan and me). Authors: Please post a revision that addresses the comments. Working Group: Please continue to send messages of support so that we know that this draft really should be advanced. Thanks, Adrian -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 08 February 2019 11:34 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn Hi WG, draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn seems to be ready to progress towards publication. This email starts a two week working group last call (ends on 23rd February). During this time, please read the draft and make comments for improvement. If you then support its publication please let us know that you have read the draft and support it. If you have any concerns, please let us know and propose solutions. Thanks, Adrian ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce 이 메일은 지정된 수취인만을 위해 작성되었으며, 중요한 정보나 저작권을 포함하고 있을 수 있습니다. 어떠한 권한 없이, 본 문서에 포함된 정보의 전부 또는 일부를 무단으로 제3자에게 공개, 배포, 복사 또는 사용하는 것을 엄격히 금지합니다. 만약, 본 메일이 잘못 전송된 경우, 발신인 또는 당사에 알려주시고, 본 메일을 즉시 삭제하여 주시기 바랍니다. This E-mail may contain confidential information and/or copyright material. This email is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you receive this email by mistake, please either delete it without reproducing, distributing or retaining copies thereof or notify the sender immediately. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn
Hi Adrian, I have read the document and support the publication. To authors few references are missing in sections 1.1/1.1.2/1.1.3, in case not taken care. Thanks, Mahendra -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 08 February 2019 17:04 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn Hi WG, draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn seems to be ready to progress towards publication. This email starts a two week working group last call (ends on 23rd February). During this time, please read the draft and make comments for improvement. If you then support its publication please let us know that you have read the draft and support it. If you have any concerns, please let us know and propose solutions. Thanks, Adrian ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-09
Hi Mike, Thank you for your RTGDIR review! Especially thankful for providing suggested texts in your comments. I hope the authors will spin out a new version SOON. Just one point - > 4. Page 5: > > Replace: > The hierarchical relationship model is described in [RFC6805]. It is > applicable to environments with small groups of domains where visibility > from the ingress LSRs is limited. As highlighted in [RFC7399] applying the > hierarchical PCE model to large groups of domains such as the Internet is > not considered feasible or desirable. > > With: > Move formatting to the right to remain consistent in this section. Under > "Stateful". > It is better if the text starts with "o" as a separate item in the outer list. As this is not under the Stateful PCE operations. Thanks! Dhruv (Shepherd/Co-Chair) ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG Adoption Call for draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6
Yes/Support. This draft give controller the capabilities to design the SRv6 Path via PCEP protocol. Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Feb 22, 2019, at 22:51, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Yes/support. This is a very important companion draft to > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing. > > Cheers, > Andy > > >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 1:47 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: >> Hi WG, >> >> Please read & review draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-04 [1] and >> send your comments to the mailing list. >> >> 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? Do you plan to implement it? >> >> This poll will run until 8th March. >> >> Thanks, >> PCE Chairs >> >> [1] >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/?include_text=1 >> >> ___ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] WG Last Call completed for draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn
Hi, The WG last call completed without any dissent, but with only a few comments of support. There were some issues raised (including from Dan and me). Authors: Please post a revision that addresses the comments. Working Group: Please continue to send messages of support so that we know that this draft really should be advanced. Thanks, Adrian -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 08 February 2019 11:34 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn Hi WG, draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn seems to be ready to progress towards publication. This email starts a two week working group last call (ends on 23rd February). During this time, please read the draft and make comments for improvement. If you then support its publication please let us know that you have read the draft and support it. If you have any concerns, please let us know and propose solutions. Thanks, Adrian ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
