Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00

I am happy to update RFC5088 and RFC5089 to allow advertisement of additional PCE information carried in the Router Capability TLV if this is the agreement.

-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
发送时间: 2018年11月16日 21:18
收件人: Qin Wu; julien.meuric@orange.com; lsr@ietf.org
抄送: pce@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00

Hi Qin, 

This was at a time when there were concerns about advertising non-IGP specific information in OSPF(v3) Router Information LSAs. We've since assuaged our concerns with RFC 7770 where I added the functionality  of advertising multiple instances of the OSPF(v3) Router Information LSA. Note that this new draft should update both RFC 5088 and RFC 5089. 

Thanks,
Acee 

On 11/16/18, 12:01 AM, "Qin Wu" <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:

    Working on this. Try to figure out how to carry key name in PCED sub-TLV. It looks RFC5088 and RFC5089 doesn't allow add additional sub-TLVs.
    "
    RFC5088
    No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future.
       If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE
       information in OSPF, this will not be carried in the Router
       Information LSA.

    RFC5089
    No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future.
       If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE
       information in IS-IS, this will not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV.
    "
    The reason behind was clarified here:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/cR7e1SZ_DyUyY14OkfWbCc94paU
    I am wondering whether there is any other key information exchange that might be happening during discovery mechanism.
    Depending on the answer, we have three options:
    1) Update RFC5088 and RFC 5089 to allow additional sub-TLVs to be added to the PCEP TLV.
    2) carry key name using GENINFO TLV of RFC 6823
    3) Carry key name during PCEP session establishment phase instead of discovery phase.

    -Qin
    -----邮件原件-----
    发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee)
    发送时间: 2018年11月15日 23:18
    收件人: julien.meuric@orange.com; lsr@ietf.org
    抄送: pce@ietf.org
    主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00

    Authors, 
    Please note that you need not wait until the end of the adoption poll to address my comment and Julien's comments. 
    Thanks,
    Acee 

    On 11/15/18, 10:02 AM, "Lsr on behalf of julien.meuric@orange.com" <lsr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of julien.meuric@orange.com> wrote:

        Hi,

        Contributor hat on, I take the opportunity mentioned by Acee to
        highlight some of the issues in the current version:
        - The I-D teaches multiple time about RFC 5088 and 5089 (while 8253 is
        only mentioned in the introduction): the discussed mechanism has been
        used multiple times, there is no need to elaborate so much (see section
        3.1.1 of RFC 8306 for example);
        - Section 3 includes the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV definition: having a
        given specification in multiples places brings no value but may create
        discrepancies, please stick to the references to the aforementioned RFCs;
        - Section 3 tries to list the existing flag allocations: these are
        inaccurate (e.g. RFC 6006 has been obsoleted by RFC 8306), incomplete
        (e.g. RFC 8231 is missing) and inappropriate (this is the role of the
        IANA registry, not of every new I-D!);
        - Contrary to the written text, the I-D does not "extend" anything, it
        requests bit allocation from an existing registry; the IANA section (7)
        is thus key: please make it point to the relevant registry, namely "PCE
        Capability Flags" managed within the "OSPFv2 Parameters"
        (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xml#ospfv2-parameters-14).

        Thanks,

        Julien

        On 13/11/2018 23:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
        > Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior
        > to that time. 

        _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
        pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
        a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
        Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

        This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
        they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
        If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
        As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
        Thank you.

        _______________________________________________
        Lsr mailing list
        Lsr@ietf.org
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

    _______________________________________________
    Lsr mailing list
    Lsr@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr