Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the BSID draft

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Siva, Mike,

I have made an update to add more clarity in section 7.

Commit: https://github.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/commit/5c7e4625e8491fdece9007bec076a654bbeeaf93
Diff:  https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-05&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt

Just to clarify, this is not a new requirement, all that is being done
is moving the text from the PCECC I-D (which was already in post-WGLC)
to the BSID I-D. It is also marked that this feature is optional and
used only in the case the implementation also supports PCECC
operations and no change is made to any existing operations that could
lead to any backward compatibility issues.

Thanks!
Dhruv (as a WG member)


On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:43 PM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I’m also concerned about having PCECC as a requirement for anything in that draft. It would break backward compatibility.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike.
>
>
>
> From: Pce <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Siva Sivabalan
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 7:13 PM
> To: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; pce-chairs <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the BSID draft
>
>
>
> Hi Dhruv and all:
>
>
>
> Section 7 states:
>
> Section 4 includes a case where a specified value for the binding  label/SID is requested to be allocated by the PCC.
>
>
>
> Section 4 (of v5) states:
>
> If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-
>
> BINDING TLV.
>
>
>
> Could we please add a bit more clarity to the motivation for the proposed change ?
>
>
>
> Also, we may want to indicate that how a PCE figures out the available labels on a PCC, etc, is outside the scope of this ID.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Siva
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 8:41 AM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi WG, Authors,
>
> As part of the handling of RTGDIR comments [1] for the PCECC I-D [2],
> it was discovered that it is a better idea to handle the Binding SID
> allocation by the PCE in the BSID I-D [3]. Julien and I agree.
>
> Also, it makes sense to move the new P-flag in the LSP object here
> (from path segment WG I-D [4]).
>
> Cheng and I have this proposed update -
>
> Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-05&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt
>
> Please let us know if anyone has any concerns with this approach. This
> draft is in our WG LC Queue [5].
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv/Cheng
>
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/4n6FpBoDHjnGppKH4bcVotUu_hE/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller/
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid/
> [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment/
> [5] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/wiki/WikiStart#WGLastCallQueue