Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-05

Hi Ketan

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:05 AM Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I do not believe this document is ready for adoption. I believe the WG
> perhaps needs to discuss some basic concepts before taking up this work.
>
> Please note that I do not object to (what I infer is) the motivation for
> this work. This document is not (yet) a good starting point for this work.
>
> 1) We need a SPRING WG document that covers the considerations related to
> Path MTU for SR Policies. We do not have such a document today. While this
> document does touch upon certain aspects, it is inadequate. This document
> should focus more on the PCEP protocol aspects and rely on the existing
> RSVP-TE spec RFC3209 and TBD for SR Policy for the application to the
> respective constructs. Note that draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu
> introduces this PMTU for BGP SRTE [*]
>

    Gyan> As Spring SR Policy draft has already been submitted for
publication, could we add verbiage to the IDR SR Policy draft  and as this
draft  is BGP SR policy  related PCE extension for PMTUD similar to the IDR
SR policy PMTU draft mentioned.  I read the comments from the IDR adoption
call as it relates to SR and PMTU.  I think  we all agree that the goal of
this and the IDR drafts are warranted.  However as PMTUD even as it relates
to SR is not overly complicated that we need a draft to explain what
constitutes the total SR packet size, as SR is not any different from any
other technology from a packet sizing perspective.   The same concept that
the lowest MTU link along a path is the maximum MTU  PMTU for the path is
valid and that is the basis for PMTU.  I don’t think this should hold up
the adoption call.

>
> 2) There seems to be some degree of mixup between the concept of (a)
> constraint for the path and (b) the reporting of the calculated path MTU of
> the path. Both are perhaps needed, but we need them to be unambiguous and
> differentiated. I would think that (a) is also very useful. And I am not
> sure if it is appropriate to refer to (b) as a "metric" - isn't it a
> property?
>

>
> 3) This is applicable for both RSVP-TE and SR Policy.
>

    Gyan> Agreed

>
> [*] What I see is that some amount of uncoordinated protocol spec
> development related to SPRING constructs is happening in the
> protocol-specific WGs (PCE & IDR) without the base work being done in the
> SPRING WG. I had raised this point during the IDR document adoption as
> well:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/ZrN1-Uw1ggyxKeltBICmcthjymM/
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 9:40 PM Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi WG,
>>
>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-05.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu/
>>
>> 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 April 2022.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dhruv & Julien
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list
>> Pce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*