Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20

From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
Sent: 23 May 2023 07:59

Hi, Tom:

Thanks for your review.

I have uploaded the new version to address your comments.

I am trying to find some more convenient methods to describe the un-allocated "TBDnnn" from the IANA. Do you have any suggestions that can't be "too easy to miss"?

My purpose is that once the IANA allocates the value to each of these values according to our requests (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-21#section-14)

, I can replace them easily in the updated version.

<tp>

Mmm  I did look at other I-D for another way but think that this is unusual in the number of TBDnnn in the body of the I-D, not in the IANA Considerations.  I did not see a request for early allocation so the values will not be assigned until the I-D is about to leave the RFC Editor Queue so it is the RFC Editor, not you, who has to find all the instances of TBDnnn and replace them.  Common practice is to add a 
-- Note to the RFC Editor
in each and every place where such action is needed outside the IANA Considerations.  There are a lot of them; 44 I think.  I think that at least there should be a Note to the RFC Editor in IANA Considerations to the effect that these values appear in many places and need editing.

I will post separately a concern about BGP session setup.

Tom Petch

For the interaction between BGP and PCEP, we think the paces or procedures described in this document can be controlled by the PCE------Once the PCE sends the command to PCC, it will collect the status of such command. Only when the previous command is executed successfully, then the next command can be issued. Section 6 cover the descriptions of main procedures.

For your other comments, please see replies inline.

Huaimo  also gives us more valuable suggestions to refine the document offline. I have also incorporated them together in the updated version.

Thanks all you together!

Future reviews from other experts can be based on the updated version.

Best Regards

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

-----Original Message-----
From: pce-bounces@ietf.org <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of tom petch
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 7:35 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20

From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:dd@dhruvdhody.com>>

Sent: 16 May 2023 23:15

This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20 [1].

<tp>

I had a look and decided that it is mostly beyond me - I am not up to speed with all the 15 Normative References, in particular with RFC8821.  I would prefer that this I-D provided a better bridge to the material in RFC8821.

I note that RFC8821 is an as yet unapproved downref which reinforces that view.

I note too that the Abstract references this and 8735 as anchors which Abstracts must not do.

[WAJ] Remove the anchors in the abstract.

The I-D uses the word 'draft' in many places.  These must be changed.

[WAJ] Changed the "draft" to "document" within the entire document.

The I-D has a large number of TBDnnn with no note requesting that they are replaced;  I find these easy to miss.

[WAJ] Do you have any suggestions that can't be "easy to miss"?

p.9 2)

seems to end mid-sentence.

[WAJ] Updated

The English is not quite in several places and could be confusing.  Thus p.5 "Further only one

   of BPI, EPR, or PPA object MUST be present.  "

I can interpret in two ways although subsequent text makes one the preferred one.

[WAJ] Change the phrase to "Further only one and one kind of BPI,EPR, or PPA object MUST be present", is it better?

I suspect that there are many potential interactions with BGP, especially when things are not going quite right, and that the I-D does not cover them all.  The language used is not that of BGP (e.g. Established, speaker).  The timing too of BGP can be quite slow, in setup and in shutdown and I wonder how a PCC copes with that.

[WAJ] Once the PCC receives the PCInitiate message that include BPI (BGP Peer Info) object, it will try to build the BGP session between the peers that indicates in the BPI object. Only when it establishes the BGP session successfully, it will report the PCE via the PCRpt message(as that described in section https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-21#section-6.1). Then the PCE can send other instruction to the PCCs.  Actually, the procedures described in this document is asynchronous.

As I say, largely beyond me but the English needs some attention;  using the terminology of BGP would help.

Tom Petch

Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome.

The WG LC will end on Wednesday 31st May 2023. We will also notify the IDR WG about this WGLC.

A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption and help us unclog our queues :)

Thanks,

Dhruv & Julien

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/

_______________________________________________

Pce mailing list

Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce