IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05

Mahendra Singh Negi <mahendrasingh@huawei.com> Tue, 25 June 2019 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mahendrasingh@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 4A52B120241 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 sOlhRUTTNZ88 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EA2B12024D for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:28:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id DC2CC774F7EAF411CBAF for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 08:28:50 +0100 (IST)
Received: from dggeme702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.98) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 08:28:50 +0100
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by dggeme702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:28:48 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) with mapi id 15.01.1591.008; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:28:48 +0800
From: Mahendra Singh Negi <mahendrasingh@huawei.com>
To: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com>
CC: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "ar2521@att.com" <ar2521@att.com>, "ag6941@att.com" <ag6941@att.com>, "jakarthi@cisco.com" <jakarthi@cisco.com>, "Siva Sivabalan (msiva)" <msiva@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05
Thread-Index: AQHVKvbQPInf3CQunEqTV3TyhC+BmKar9O8w
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:28:48 +0000
Message-ID: <a723acbfae5d4d77ae302644425aa8ed@huawei.com>
References: <CAL70W4ryzq3c5e5Qe72gMsyKN-NTdXCRt8oEgiCY7qJjSv36ng@mail.gmail.com> <CAL70W4qy8uTtE1WndPU-QOoJ-TXxEyYa5oW9A6JVJguca5zXkw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL70W4qy8uTtE1WndPU-QOoJ-TXxEyYa5oW9A6JVJguca5zXkw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.77.192]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a723acbfae5d4d77ae302644425aa8edhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/73-zrFSvuyIcWtgpp8lpuaU82fI>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:28:56 -0000

Hi Hari,

Thanks for the review, comments are fixed and new version is uploaded.


Htmlized:      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06

Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-06


Regards,
Mahendra


From: Hariharan Ananthakrishnan [mailto:hari@netflix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 7:09 AM
To: pce@ietf.org; ar2521@att.com; ag6941@att.com; jakarthi@cisco.com; Siva Sivabalan (msiva) <msiva@cisco.com>; Mahendra Singh Negi <mahendrasingh@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05

+ Authors.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:31 PM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com<mailto:hari@netflix.com>> wrote:
-------
Header:
In general should we use "Stateful PCE" or "stateful PCE" ? I see in RFC 8231 we use "Stateful PCE"

OLD:
Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)

NEW:
Ability for a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)

--------
Abstract:
OLD:
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)

NEW:
A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)

-------------
Section 4:
To make it more clear, it would be good to state that C and D flags are mutually exclusive in PCUpd message.

OLD:

The PCE SHOULD NOT send control request for LSP which is already delegated to the

PCE, i.e. if the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag SHOULD NOT be set.



NEW:

The D Flag and C Flag are mutually exclusive in PCUpd message. The PCE SHOULD NOT

send control request for LSP which is already delegated to thePCE, i.e. if

the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag SHOULD NOT be set.



--------------

I dont see Adrian's suggestion being implemented in Section 8 in the latest draft. It would be good to have this apart from the Security Considerations.



SUGGESTED:

Not sure whether it belongs in 8.1 or 8.3 or 7...

The Security considerations section suggests dropping delegation

requests if the PCC is swamped. I think you need to configure the

threshold for swamping, and to recommend that the issue be logged.

IMPLEMENTED:

-----------------

Thanks,

Hari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email