Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,
Thank you for the detailed review and for the support.
We will address your inputs in the next revision.
Please find my further replies inline tagged as [GF].

Best Regards,

Giuseppe

From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2022 1:18 AM
To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

Hi,

I read through this draft as part of the adoption poll.

I found it quite hard to work out from the Abstract what the purpose of
the document is. The Introduction is a little more informative, but also
quite hard work.

It turns out, when you read the document, that two things are being
defined:
1. A set of attributes to allow a PCE to instruct a PCC as to which IFIT
   behaviours it should enable on a path.
2. A capabilities flags so that a PCC can indicate which IFIT functions
   it supports.

I think the Abstract might usefully read as follows.

   In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM data
   plane on-path telemetry techniques, in particular In-situ OAM (IOAM)
   and Alternate Marking.

   This document defines PCEP extensions to allow a Path Computation
   Client (PCC) to indicate which IFIT features it supports, and a Path
   Computation Element (PCE) to configure IFIT behavior at a PCC for a
   specific path in the stateful PCE model.

   The PCEP extensions described in this document are defined for use
   with Segment Routing (SR). They could be generalized for all path
   types, but that is out of scope of this document.

[GF]: Good suggestion. We can change the wording as suggested.

The Introduction might also usefully change in that way.

[GF]: Ok, we will revise the Introduction as well.

---

While I appreciate that the authors are primarily concerned with SR, I
think the WG should carefully consider taking the authors at their word
and pursuing the generalisation to all path types. That can't be much
additional work, and it would surely make sense to get the solution to
be generic from day one.

[GF]: I agree. We will try to better highlight that the draft is general to all path types. We can also move the part on Segment Routing to a later section just as an example.

---

Please move the requirements language from the front-matter to its own
section (probably 1.1).

[GF]: Ok

---

With the clarification of the intent of the document, I would support
the working group working on this document, and it could be adopted.

[GF]: Thank you!

Regards,
Adrian

From: Pce <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 24 June 2022 09:59
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 11th July 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien