Re: [Last-Call] [Pce] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-10
Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 28 January 2021 21:34 UTC
Return-Path: <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC7B3A177D; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 13:34:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 sZw1Th3TiyRS; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 13:34:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 669973A177A; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 13:34:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id u25so9597119lfc.2; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 13:34:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=I31TZ8eEZ72Xe2+32y2C3yMMq55XK7Blr53Qyue14E8=; b=KB4jPgoxFtre3UzS/UE/E1sW9a0Hu2s/z5WnZYD8qhfyvDctbeqG0XWBVLkgnBWyGo luUzYey5SukHoNnbG5ufBKld3twUPQoCAH7KXN77zBlZazX3XuCTYSu7ExQtybrXIIKL ciQcD8NusXMYyirkbbpguqB2I8iqDULE443Y12j35KQZ1DGdm6nfggtHfjH0K6/2F8Mz BwuaBOFaWB6jfdBoU3m1PXLeiTkqq7pOfVcPYlsYjzFE0gj7yYOpJNzjolWMYg0buxxX 0bQFgeiaz/0aRWs2PGG48GKWXoGH+cQ1KoiJB0pG9zzjuO14WuJx3t1KOc6OTDMenLof m4rg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=I31TZ8eEZ72Xe2+32y2C3yMMq55XK7Blr53Qyue14E8=; b=DGxVhqYgcO3DmkoPCGfGCZvqvL0Xu4J0VXC2JKG1QTpUpxYo9vgJ4rJEDLA9Hs8qgb FL7opvWRQOCbwyZPAVySrNJTSa+tPeI7X/4YPDJLKEuF14vn3cigpToP7fJNL8y16WD7 rhcjeflJij2vUGt0bdncPG0T95sXEHkYMxIireWDH0t7PY+O8cEWSzxxSjGMnUKU7DhK kvX2/uDUs5tiUb/1rQTknxtQtwunbs7y6ZaEKBUp+MPX1pbUIXYVSBhjhMvHgGjorWaC HL26aNrz2fS/fIbTI/f0pLOz4uH4UtnyuhttURDSFCA5XuiBxWi/Scy927cYcjZKB0yv gfrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5308zxY5wf4A9xQvtyIKEzXxwoZVlr51/VOt0V9SsaThebRUQZnb PI9//RpyZGhC1tGz7XvaRg0iWtp7uwpsiZB7o2QXOvkmUA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2yrq7a2qJ6GQmlJFcwozGgDqJpIMkZ5Uk7iValiRY3ji1G+/vk6RCG2KsedOf1H6eDO0Czt11h5Uo3+f4Aao=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2342:: with SMTP id p2mr494433lfu.509.1611869686350; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 13:34:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161178976521.30445.7921080637059611565@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMZsk6drYw_yNkMCZ_rS9bbProh76jfHJpjLjncsYzCBQBWB7Q@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF0147691277@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF0147691277@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 16:34:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6cAMNE2q5-oNwiGove6tHx=ZPY9hJSyVp22Zx5x-YOp6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000014472105b9fca8e2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/nn_FoiR6pinxULR1r3VIPKjjQEQ>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [Pce] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-10
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 21:34:52 -0000
Hi Al, Thanks for the comments. Please see inline for one comment with <RG2>... On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 1:23 PM MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com> wrote: > Hi Rakesh, > > > > Thanks for adding the new reference to RFC7551 in the requirement we’re > discussing. > > Please see below for replies *[acm]* on this and other comments. > > > > Al > > > > *From:* Rakesh Gandhi [mailto:rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 27, 2021 8:30 PM > *To:* MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com> > *Cc:* ops-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir.all@ietf.org; > last-call@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Opsdir last call review of > draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-10 > > > > Thank you Al for the review. > > Please see replies inline with <RG>... > > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:23 PM Al Morton via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Al Morton > Review result: Has Nits > > This document defines PCEP extensions for grouping two unidirectional > MPLS-TE LSPs into an Associated Bidirectional LSP. > Specifically, this document defines two new > Association Types, "Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association" and > "Double-sided Bidirectional LSP Association", as well as > "Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV" to carry additional > information for the association. > > Comments: > > Thank you for including Section 8, Manageability Considerations. > > I'm seeking clarification for the following requirement (although it may be > completely clear to those who are knee-deep in this terminology): > > Section 4.1 > ... > o The Tunnel (as defined in [RFC3209]) of forward and reverse LSPs > of the Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association on the > originating endpoint node MUST be the same, albeit with reverse > endpoint nodes. > > as currently written, the requirement says that > two preceding nouns MUST be the same. > > But is it: > "The Tunnel *containing the* forward and reverse LSPs..."? > Or is it, > "The *Tunnels associated with the* forward and reverse LSPs ..." ? > Or something else? > > > > <RG> How about following text? > > The Tunnel (as defined in [RFC3209]) containing the forward and reverse > LSPs of the Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association on the originating > node MUST be the same [RFC7551], both LSPs albeit with with reverse > endpoint nodes. > > *[acm] * > > *Some relevant text from 7551 seems to be:* > > *3.1.1* <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7551#section-3.1.1>*. > Single-Sided Provisioning* > > For the single-sided provisioning, the Traffic Engineering (TE) > > tunnel is configured only on one endpoint. An LSP for this tunnel is > > initiated by the initiating endpoint with the (Extended) ASSOCIATION > > and REVERSE_LSP Objects inserted in the Path message. The other > > endpoint then creates the corresponding reverse TE tunnel and signals > > the reverse LSP in response using information from the REVERSE_LSP > > Object and other objects present in the received Path message. > > > > *So would it also be correct to say:* > > > > The forward and reverse tunnels (as defined in [RFC3209]) containing the > forward and reverse LSPs of the Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association > on the originating node MUST be the same bi-directional tunnel (as > described in section 3.1.1 of [RFC7551]), albeit both LSPs have reversed > endpoint nodes. > > > > *OR,* > > The Tunnel (as defined in [RFC3209]) containing the forward and reverse > LSPs of the Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association on the originating > node MUST be have the same LSP parameters (as described in section 3.1.1 of > [RFC7551]), albeit both LSPs have reversed endpoint nodes. > > > <RG2> This looks good. Thanks, Rakesh *?* > > > > [RFC3209] simple definitions are (both seem to be unidirectional): > LSP Tunnel > An LSP which is used to tunnel below normal IP routing and/or > filtering mechanisms. > Traffic Engineered Tunnel (TE Tunnel) > A set of one or more LSP Tunnels which carries a traffic trunk. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Another request for clarification: > 5.6. State Synchronization > During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing > Bidirectional LSP Associations to the Stateful PCE as per [RFC8697]. > After the state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all stale > Bidirectional LSP Associations. > > What is the procedure to determine a stale association, a time-out > or simply the absence of a previously association in a report? > Is there a passage covering stale determination in 8697, another > reference, or a passage in the current memo that I missed? > > > > <RG> The absence of the previous association in a report. I could not find > any relevant text in the RFC 8697. How about following? > > 5.6. State Synchronization > > During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing > Bidirectional LSP Associations to the Stateful PCE as per [RFC8697]. > After the state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all previous > Bidirectional LSP Associations absent in the report. > > *[acm] * > > *thanks, that helps.* > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Editorial: > 4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV > > The "Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV" an OPTIONAL TLV for use > s/an/is an/ > > > > <RG> Ack. > > > > Thanks, > > Rakesh > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce__;!!BhdT!1WR3RmPG7BhQ_nNCb0hbDVOQZhEzQHMzuBWP0hqrdiQyj1w4AbxdWTqiWfBB$> > >
- [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf… Al Morton via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] [Pce] Opsdir last call review of … Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [Last-Call] [Pce] Opsdir last call review of … MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
- Re: [Last-Call] [Pce] Opsdir last call review of … Rakesh Gandhi