Re: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Thu, 24 August 2017 06:09 UTC
Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C3F132356 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 23:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 DCFejYiJY7GH for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B100012426E for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 23:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DNF57202; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:09:39 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.41) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:09:38 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.198]) by BLREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:39:30 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
Thread-Index: AdL/2TRAy7FbyRAmRvC/dNULikyoKgcxSi2Q
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:09:29 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBA7C6@blreml501-mbx>
References: <06bf01d2ffd9$494bdba0$dbe392e0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <06bf01d2ffd9$494bdba0$dbe392e0$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090201.599E6DA3.00A2, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: aa461ed93e16a18e12d4f761820c1892
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/-TSBbFjAlIno38pVRbCFl-jTaEM>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 06:09:45 -0000
Hi WG, After discussion, the conclusion is to keep the following "numbers of code points for experimental use" - * 4 messages (252-255) * 8 objects (248-255) * 32 tlvs (65504-65535) These numbers are derived based on the past experience of running experiments. All the other comments from Adrian are accepted, and Adrian has joined as co-author. Thanks Adrian! I will post an update to the draft shortly. Please let us know if there are any further comments. Regards, Dhruv > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 18 July 2017 20:50 > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints > > Hi, > > Per the chairs' request today, I had another look at the experimental > codepoints draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-01/. Sorry to > entirely rewrite your draft ;-) > > My meta point that I have raised before is that I think you are assigning > way too many experimental code points. I do not want to be blocking on WG > process on this point and will accept that I am in the rough *if* the > chairs believe that that is the case. The background to my thought is BCP > 82 that says: > In many, if not most cases, reserving a single value for experimental > use will suffice. While it may be tempting to reserve more in order > to make it easy to test many things at once, reserving many may also > increase the temptation for someone using a particular value to > assume that a specific experimental value can be used for a given > purpose exclusively. > I agree that one code point is probably limiting, but I also think that > * 4 messages > * 8 objects > * 8 TLVs > would be at the high end of what is needed. > > The other points are below. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > --- > Metadata > > I think you are changing an existing registry definition. This is > different from making an allocation from a registry, so you are updating > the RFC that created the registry. You need to add the > "Updates: RFC 5440" text. > > --- > > Title > > s/for/for the/ > > --- > > Abstract > > s/IETF Consensus/IETF Review/ > > --- > > Abstract > > OLD > This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of > PCEP. > NEW > This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies > for these three registries to mark some of the code points as assigned > for Experimental Use. > END > > --- > > Requirements Language > > I don't think you need 2119 language in this document. See my comments on > Section 5. > > --- > > 1. Introduction > > The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides > mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path > computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. > > This is a somewhat old definition of PCEP that doesn't account for > delegation and PCE-initiated LSPs. > > --- > > 1. Introduction > > In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol > parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a new top- > level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. > The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus as > described in [RFC8126]. Specifically, new assignments are made via > RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek input on > prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant > Working Group if one exists). Early allocation [RFC7120] provides > some latitude for allocation of these code points, but is reserved > for features that are considered appropriately stable. > > I'm not sure you should seek to redefine "IETF Consensus". The citation of > 8126 should be enough and you can cut the paragraph there. > > Anyway > s/IETF Consensus/IETF Review/ > > --- > > 1. Introduction > > With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment > with PCEP. It is often necessary to use some sort of number or > constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new > function, even when testing in a closed environment. In order to run > experiment, it is important that the value won't collide not only > with existing codepoints but any future allocation. > > s/run experiment/run experiments/ > > --- > > 1. Introduction > > OLD > This document thus set apart some codepoints in PCEP registry and > subregistries for experimental usage. > NEW > This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies > for these three registries to mark some of the code points as > assigned for Experimental Use. See [RFC3692] for further discussion > of the use of experimental codepoints. > END > > --- > > 2. PCEP Messages > > OLD > Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation > with new PCEP messages. The suggested range is 246-255. > NEW > PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets > aside message types 246-255 for experimentation as described in > Section 6.1. > END > > --- > > 3. PCEP Objects > > OLD > Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation > with new PCEP objects. The suggested range is 224-255. > NEW > PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This > document sets aside object identifiers 224-255 for experimentation as > described in Section 6.2. > END > > --- > > 4. PCEP TLVs > > OLD > Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation > with new PCEP TLVs. The suggested range is 65280-65535. > NEW > PCEP TLV type codes are in the range 0 to 65535. This document sets > aside object identifiers 65280-65535 for experimentation as described > in Section 6.3. > END > > --- > > OLD > 5. Handling of unknown experimentation > NEW > 5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation > END > > --- > > 5. Handling of unknown experimentation > > OLD > A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, MUST > reject the entire PCEP message and MUST send a PCE error message with > Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object", defined as > per [RFC5440]. > NEW > A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will > reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with > Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described > in [RFC5440]. > END > > --- > > 6.1. New PCEP Messages > > OLD > Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the > following allocations: > > +---------+-------------+-------------------+ > | Type | Description | Allocation Policy | > +---------+-------------+-------------------+ > | 246-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | > +---------+-------------+-------------------+ > NEW > IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this > registry to read as follows: > > 0-245 IETF Review > 246-255 Experimental Use > > IANA is also requested to mark the values 246-255 in the registry > accordingly. > END > > --- > > 6.2. New PCEP Objects > > OLD > Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the > following allocations: > > +---------+-------------+-------------------+ > | Type | Description | Allocation Policy | > +---------+-------------+-------------------+ > | 224-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | > +---------+-------------+-------------------+ > NEW > IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this > registry to read as follows: > > 0-245 IETF Review > 224-255 Experimental Use > > IANA is also requested to mark the values 224-255 in the registry > accordingly. > END > > --- > > 6.3. New PCEP TLVs > > OLD > Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the > following allocations: > > +------------+-------------+-------------------+ > | Type | Description | Allocation Policy | > +------------+-------------+-------------------+ > |65280-65535 | Unassigned | Experimental Use | > +------------+-------------+-------------------+ > NEW > IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this > registry to read as follows: > > 0-65279 IETF Review > 65280-65535 Experimental Use > > IANA is also requested to mark the values 65280-65535 in the registry > accordingly. > END > > --- > > DELETE > 7. Allocation Policy > > The allocation policy for the IANA request in Section 6 is > "Experimental". As per [RFC8126], IANA does not record specific > assignments for any particular use for this policy. > > As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or > RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used and > experimental code points are freed up. > END > > NOTE > The meaning of the first paragraph is now achieved in Section 6. > The second paragraph is ambiguous as experimental codepoints are > not "freed up" in any sense that the IETF can be aware of. > END > > --- > > 8. Security Considerations > > ADD > [RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points > introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations > accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse > and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come, > accidentally from another experiment. > END > > --- > > 10.1. Normative References > > DELETE > [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate > Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, > DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, > <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. > END > > --- > > 10.2. Informative References > > Add RFC 3692 > > --- > > Appendix A. Other Codepoints > > Was this intended to be "Other PCEP Registries"? > > --- > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
- [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-cod… Dhruv Dhody