RE: [Pce] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12.txt> (Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware Label Switched Path (LSP).) to Proposed Standard
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 30 August 2016 14:15 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 754F312D67C; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XHrbrOmQqo9w; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77D9F12D699; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u7UEDYuj028892; Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:13:34 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-dp-81-140-107-254.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.107.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u7UEDXgH028842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:13:33 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <147197513470.30697.9830247130594037700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <147197513470.30697.9830247130594037700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Subject: RE: [Pce] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12.txt> (Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware Label Switched Path (LSP).) to Proposed Standard
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:13:34 +0100
Message-ID: <044d01d202c8$b28c7570$17a56050$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIDAhEo3aZ9zpS5K2F2ZISuK5p1S5//jLNA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22544.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--23.610-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--23.610-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 0lhM5bBmjENfsB4HYR80ZggKAWhuC2ojCckvlPjoBZHMsBoiFjsqU3FD 0I0jlEDdb0Vh0kOMt5DjBgwEoIY126zu4G+93oCZ5gCHftmwEMKbKpAlY2y6SYsmjCVuBrWaEFM wn2lXrJetmpf2iRnuMB4YIi83R+XRcVXRWXN8OAS8mw5HALM2EYnYecOGbaDP31GU/N5W5BAfQk pV+utySrE0C34v7QvuqXywQiS3kGE+ntlO46BrOpmug812qIbzguwtqyXlE6GUB1im9mwwvxkB/ AB2fE723qMjIETpe18VV8LeFIqMI+bNhPxw6RtZQ1OcCEvT+bdBCir9/rc1+1mmz7LVVfOpJz/F li73wMiMzaOQ+y3toW6aj8mIfoSVrCSDvRpy10RCnGIuUMP0Vfa/bRHEsPI35VavBrAV4wVs6G9 DDFkJS8WRE/vrHlTavMCLY3BN0BJCrZI5WAPNndbVO5cqfV4RJNtuyL6mpIVXPwnnY5XL5LsIas nPqvyQM5W9Ux3WnqA90eOOXLYYOkgukvuVCw6kTVa+L3Zgqc5GaYCtfzKNi6MLUT/MIQivT8LsL XQkTu8NgcboyRgLg/N6DfIShQwCCXZ8FQwqLpj0mf9msa5zwbd2noO4P7rAIhbNtFcav8IQksrI IkcnzOnLZEAfqoLhivlihZH+8x3+rCF+A3NH6ZEbNXwHGDRx4dDbWPxG2mUM74Nf6tTB9jfQR4L HkrYrdZWJviqh4f1mt/T41n9DTU1+zyfzlN7y/sToY2qzpx6x5amWK2anSPoLR4+zsDTtAqYBE3 k9Mpw=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NNhwnbBhg0VlDuwYf74SNJLeGMM>
Cc: pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:15:28 -0000
I just read this document for IETF last call. I feel a little bad that I didn't review the document in WG last call since I normally participate in the PCE WG, but the timing wasn't good. The document is both well written and clear. I support advancing this document, but I have a few small comments. Thanks, Adrian --- Requirement 4 has 4. A PCE is not required to support service aware path computation. Therefore, it MUST be possible for a PCE to reject a PCReq message with a reason code that indicates service-aware path computation is not supported. It may be better to phrase this in terms of legacy systems since (obviously), a PCE that does not support this spec must still be able to reject requests. Perhaps... 4. A PCE that supports this specification is not required to provide service aware path computation to any PCC at any time. Therefore, it MUST be possible for a PCE to reject a PCReq message with a reason code that indicates service-aware path computation is not supported. Furthermore, a PCE that does not support this specification will either ignore or reject such requests using pre-existing mechanisms, therefore the requests MUST be identifiable to legacy PCEs and rejections by legacy PCEs MUST be acceptable within this specification. This is not a change to the requirement and doesn't change your protocol solution. --- 4.1.1 has... - A path delay metric for the P2P path P = Sum {D(Lpi), (i=1...K)}. Is it worth noting that the path delay metric is not the effective delay along the path? That is, delay on the path will also be introduced by delays in the nodes along the path. However, information about the delays introduced by nodes along the path is not currently made available through the routing protocols, and is unlikely to be consistent as network load varies. Note that your definition of path delay is good. I am not proposing any change to the definition, just and explanation of what it is not. --- In several places in Section 4 you refer to specific bits (P bit, B bit...). I think it would be helpful to understand that these are bits in the flags field of the Metric object. Maybe an easy way to deal with this is... OLD The METRIC object is defined in section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising metric-value, metric-type (T field) and flags. This document defines the following types for the METRIC object. NEW The METRIC object is defined in section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising metric-value, metric-type (T field) and a flags field comprising a number of bit-flags (B bit, P bit). This document defines the following types for the METRIC object. END --- I think you need to add (a very small amount of) text to describe how this all works for initiated LSPs. Just like Section 5. --- 4.1.1.1 [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define the "Unidirectional Link Delay Sub- TLV" in a 24-bit field. I think this should be... [RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define the "Unidirectional Link Delay Sub- TLV" to report link delay in microseconds in a 24-bit field. Similarly in 4.1.2.1 --- 4.1.6 has This section defines the following optional types for the METRIC object for P2MP TE LSPs. 4.1 does not say whether the P2P metrics are optional or mandatory. I suspect you mean... - Implementations of this spec must implement TBD1, TBD2, and TBD3 - Implementations of this spec that support P2MP (which is an optional feature) must support TBD8, TBD9, and TBD10. --- In 4.1.6.1 when you wrote - The P2P path delay metric of the path to destination Dest_j is denoted by LM(Dest_j). I wonder whether you were thinking "LM means Link delay Metric"? A bit odd that you have actually written "LM means P2P path delay metric" Ditto LVM in 4.1.6.2 --- 4.2.3.1 A PCC SHOULD request the PCE to factor in the bandwidth utilization during path computation by including a BU object in the PCReq message. I don't understand the use of "SHOULD" here. I suspect you mean... A PCC that wants the PCE to factor in the bandwidth utilization during path computation includes a BU object in the PCReq message. What you have is a statement that unless there is a good reason why not, a PCC is supposed to request the PCE to factor in the bandwidth utilization during path computation. --- 4.2.3.1 I found the following clumsy and suggest a change... OLD Multiple BU objects MAY be inserted in a PCReq or a PCRep message for a given request but there MUST be at most one instance of the BU object for each type. If, for a given request, two or more instances of a BU object with the same type are present, only the first instance MUST be considered and other instances MUST be ignored. NEW A PCReq or PCRep message MAY contain multiple BU objects so long as each is for a different bandwidth utilization type. If a message contains more than one BU object with the same bandwidth utilization type, the first MUST be processed by the receiver and subsequent instances MUST be ignored. END --- 4.2.3.1 should not define legacy behavior. A legacy node will not see this spec and cannot be influenced by what you write. So... OLD If a PCE receives a PCReq message containing a BU object, and the PCE does not understand or support the BU object, and the P bit is clear in the BU object header then the PCE SHOULD simply ignore the BU object. If the PCE does not understand the BU object, and the P bit is set in the BU object header, then the PCE MUST send a PCErr message containing a PCEP-ERROR Object with Error-Type = 3 (Unknown object) and Error-value = 1 (Unrecognized object class) as per [RFC5440]. NEW The behavior of a PCE that does not understand an object that it receives on PCReq message is defined in [RFC5440] and depends on the setting of the P bit in the object header (P bit clear means ignore the object, P but set means return an "Unknown object" error). END --- 4.2.3.1 Your use of passive voice may cause confusion. You write... The path computation request MUST then be cancelled. Does this mean: 1. The PCE must do not more processing on the request and the PCC must not expect any further response 2. The PCC is required to issue a message to cancel the request There are two cases of this text in this section. --- Section 5 does a nice job for stateful PCE. I think you also need to cover PCE initiated LSPs. --- Section 6 needs a reference to RFC 5511 so that the message formats can be understood. > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: 23 August 2016 18:59 > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: pce-chairs@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service- > aware@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12.txt> (Extensions > to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to compute > service aware Label Switched Path (LSP).) to Proposed Standard > > > The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG > (pce) to consider the following document: > - 'Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol > (PCEP) to compute service aware Label Switched Path (LSP).' > <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12.txt> as Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-09-06. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
- RE: [Pce] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service… Adrian Farrel
- RE: [Pce] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service… Dhruv Dhody
- RE: [Pce] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service… Adrian Farrel
- RE: [Pce] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service… Dhruv Dhody