Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-association-policy

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Aijun,

Thank you for your comments.

I wanted to focus on the 3rd point. I remember this being discussed
perhaps in the previous incarnation of the draft. The main motivation
in PCEP is to provide a "standard" container and mechanism to
associate (and encode the policy) and leave the actual policy
standardization out of the scope of PCEP.

Another way to look at this would be, when a policy is well-known and
needs to be standardized (some may consider diversity or SR-Policy as
those policies), we define a new standard association-type for it with
a standard TLV. This I-D is used when we do not have a standard policy
defined in PCEP but would like to use the protocol as an opaque
container to associate policies to the path. What does that policy
mean and how to encode/decode the policy parameters are expected to be
done out-of-band via other mechanisms which are better suited for
policy definitions and configurations at the PCEP speakers.  Hope this
helps!

Thanks!
Dhruv (hat-less!)

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 6:43 AM Aijun Wang <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Authors:
>
> I Just have a quick view of this draft, and has some points wanted to be
> clarified:
> 1. This draft defines one new association type (policy association type)
> that follows the procedures described in RFC8697 and attached TLV? Is it
> right?
> 2. According to the text described in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8697#section-3.2, to define one new
> association type, the related draft should clarify its relationship between
> the SVEC object, if any.
> Should this draft to add such part?
> 3. For the definition of "Policy-Parameters-TLV", the "Policy Parameters" is
> opaque value to the PCEP peers.  The draft describes the PCEP peers should
> know how to the encoding format of such policy in advance. But from my POV,
> the encoding format is the main content needs to be standardized. If such
> contents can't be standardized, what benefit can we get from this
> standardization work? What's the reason not to standardize this?
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dhruv
> Dhody
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 5:42 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; pce-chairs
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-association-policy
>
> Hi WG,
>
> A reminder to the WG to be more vocal. I am copying this slide from the
> chair's WG status slide
> [https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-pce-1-introduction-0
> 1]
>
> > Please be Vocal
> >
> > o During WG Adoption and WG LC calls, the response is less.
> >
> > o Please be vocal on the list to help us gauge the consensus better.
> >
> > o The working group mailing lists are looked at by the IESG, IAB, and
> others (internal and external to IETF) to determine interest/participation
> level in our standards process.
> >
> > o Please review ideas from your peers, these are community outputs of the
> working group as a whole.
> >
>
> The WG LC for the draft in question ends on Monday 21st Sept. Please respond
> with your explicit support (or not) for its publication.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 10:43 AM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi WG,
> >
> > This email starts a working group last call for
> > draft-ietf-pce-association-policy [1].  Please indicate your support
> > or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of
> > the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it,
> > please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready
> > for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits
> > are most welcome.
> >
> > The WG LC will end on 21st September 2020.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dhruv & Julien
> > [1]
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-policy/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>