Hi Mike, Authors, Please make a new version of the I-D where you handle the following items. We can then send the I-D to the IESG.
(1) Please handle Ketan's concern and add the IANA note as he suggested - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ZaYof63GNYdplFUOLo6G6hJlx3c/ (2) A few comments/query got missed, please update or respond if no changes are needed... - Section 5.2, I am unsure about the interaction between the unsetting of P-flag (PCEP speaker does not support the TLV) and the default value (128 when the TLV is not present). Isn't it a bit weird? - Section 5.4, Should Oper/Config get a registry for ease of adding new flags in future? (3) Some new comments on checking the diff - abstract, s/[RFC8231]/RFC 8231/ (no references in abstract) - s/ANY/any/ - RFC 7525 is obsolete by RFC 9325, please update! (4) I am working on the shepherd writeup - https://notes.ietf.org/HziLkaoxS6iYoQ3sOcwk-A?view ; will update in the datatracker once you post a new version handling these. Thanks! Dhruv On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 7:40 AM Mike Koldychev <mkold...@proton.me> wrote: > Hi Dhruv, > > I've incorporated your changes and all the other comments that I have > received so far. Hopefully I didn't miss anything. Version 15 is uploaded. > Thanks a lot for your comments and updates! > > Thanks, > Mike. > > On Saturday, March 9th, 2024 at 8:23 AM, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> > wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > I have finished the shepherd review of > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-14. Please handle these comments > before we ship this I-D to IESG. > > ## Major > - Section 5.6, you need to add update: RFC 8231 in the draft metadata. > This should also be captured in the abstract. The prefered way is to > clearly identify the text in RFC8231 that is changing with "OLD:" and > "NEW:" format! > - Section 8, Security considerations need to also cover the non-SRPA TLVs > which are not considered in the current text. > > ## Query > - Section 4.1, > ```` > If the PCC receives a > PCInit message with the Association Source set not to the headend IP > but to some globally unique IP address that the headend owns, then > the PCC SHOULD accept the PCInit message and create the SRPA with the > Association Source that was sent in the PCInit message. > ```` > What is the purpose of this text? PCC should use the source as set by the > PCE - isn't it given? Am I missing something? Boris also pointed this out > in his review. > > > ## Minor > - Abstract is not very useful for a non-expert. Maybe change something > like - > ```` > OLD: > A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is a non-empty set of SR Candidate > Paths, which share the same <headend, color, endpoint> tuple. SR > Policy is modeled in PCEP as an Association of one or more SR > Candidate Paths. PCEP extensions are defined to signal additional > attributes of an SR Policy. The mechanism is applicable to all SR > forwarding planes (MPLS, SRv6, etc.). > NEW: > Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any > path. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., > instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows > are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated > called a headend node. An SR Policy is made of one or more candidate > paths. > > This document specifies Path Computation Element Communication > Protocol (PCEP) extension to associate candidate paths of the SR > Policy. It applies equally to the SR-MPLS and Segment Routing over > IPv6 (SRv6) instantiations of segment routing. > END > ```` > - Similarly I find Introduction to be very light on details. Consider > adding text by looking through recently published RFCs for instance. > - Terminology: > ``` > OLD: > SRPA: SR Policy Association. PCEP ASSOCATION that describes the SR > Policy. Depending on discussion context, it refers to a PCEP > object or to a group of LSPs that belong to the Association. > NEW: > SRPA: SR Policy Association. A new association type 'SR Policy > Association' is used to group candidate paths belonging to the SR > Policy. Depending on discussion context, it can refer to the PCEP > ASSOCIATION object of SR Policy type or to a group of LSPs that > belong to the association. > END > ``` > - Section 4, please add this text at the start - > ```` > As per [RFC8697], LSPs are associated with other LSPs with which they > interact by adding them to a common association group. As described > in [RFC8697], the association group is uniquely identified by the > combination of the following fields in the ASSOCIATION object: > Association Type, Association ID, Association Source, and (if > present) Global Association Source or Extended Association ID, > referred to as Association Parameters. > ```` > - Section 4.2, since none of the TLV are multi-instance. Can we simplify > this text - > ```` > OLD: > Unless specifically stated otherwise, the TLVs listed in the > following sub-sections are assumed to be single instance. Meaning, > only one instance of the TLV SHOULD be present in the object and only > the first instance of the TLV SHOULD be interpreted and subsequent > instances SHOULD be ignored. > NEW: > This document specifies four new TLVs to be carried in the SRPA object. > Only one TLV instance of each type can be carried, and only the first > occurrence is processed. Any others MUST be ignored. > ```` > Also applicable to section 5! > - Section 4.2.2, consider changing the SHOULD to MUST in this section. I > could not think of a justification for SHOULD here! > - Section 5.1, > - please also state what happens if the TLVs are used without the exchange > of SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV or the corresponding bit is unset. Without it, > what is the use of adding this TLV? > - Consider updating the description such as "P-flag: If set to '1' by a > PCEP speaker, the P flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports the > handling of COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV for the SR Policy." > - please add "Unassigned bits MUST be set to '0' on transmission and MUST > be ignored on receipt." > - Section 5.2, I am unsure about the interaction between the unsetting of > P-flag (PCEP speaker does not support the TLV) and the default value (128 > when the TLV is not present). Isn't it a bit weird? > - Section 5.3, should the use of this TLV be limited to SR-MPLS? Also can > ENLP value be converted into a registery maintained at > https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml > which can be referred by both PCE and BGP? > - Section 5.4, please add "The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be > set to zero upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt." Should > "Invalidation Reasons Flags" get a registry for ease of adding new flags in > future? In general, can the text in this section be tightened a little bit? > Examples - be explicit on who is sending and who is receiving for instance. > Also, consider adding a more detailed example to show the usage of the > flags better alongside PCEP message exchange. > - Section 5.5, please add normative reference to > draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid > - Section 6.5, are you refereing to the registry at > https://www.iana.org/assignments/segment-routing/segment-routing.xhtml, > in which case it is called "Segment Routing" and not "Segment Routing > Parameters". Also better to call the new registry being added as > subregistry. > - Section 10.2, please make RFC 8253 and RFC 7525 as normative references. > > ## Nits > - Expand PCEP and SR in the title > - Expand PCEP, SRv6 in the abstract > - Expand MBZ on first use. It is also better to state that the field is > ignored on receipt > - Section 4.2.2, add reference to RFC 9256 for Discriminator, as you have > done for other fields > - Section 4.2.4, add reference to RFC 9356 for Preference > - s/there needs to be a separate capability negotiation/a separate > capability negotiation is useful/ > - Expand on first use OAM/PM/BFD > - Section 6, please update the text in subsections where the number of > assignments in tables do not match the introductory text. > > I am also attaching the updated xml that could be a starting point for you > to work on -15 version. > > Thanks! > Dhruv > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
