Re: [Pce] Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-23: (with COMMENT)

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mahesh,

On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 4:50 AM Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-23: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for working on this document. I am not an expert in PCEP and its
> related
> drafts, but as I understand it, this document is defining an extension for
> SRv6
> and not SR-MPLS. Therefore, I am confused by this long paragraph in the
> Introduction section that delves into how SR-MPLS works. To quote:
>
>    [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a stateful PCE to
>    compute and recommend network paths in compliance with [RFC4657] and
>    defines objects and TLVs for MPLS-TE LSPs.  Stateful PCEP extensions
>    provide synchronization of LSP state between a PCC and a PCE or
>    between a pair of PCEs, delegation of LSP control, reporting of LSP
>    state from a PCC to a PCE, controlling the setup and path routing of
>    an LSP from a PCE to a PCC.  Stateful PCEP extensions are intended
>    for an operational model in which LSPs are configured on the PCC, and
>    control over them is delegated to the PCE.
>
> If there is something this paragraph conveys applies to SRv6, it is not
> apparent in the next paragraph. In anything, the next paragraph on how this
> would work in SRv6 was clear in itself, without needing this paragraph.
>
>
>
Dhruv: The base PCEP specifications were specific to MPLS-TE and over time
they have been extended for SR-MPLS, GMPLS etc.  This and the previous
paragraph is setting the scene to highlight the existing specifications
(RFC 5440 and RFC 8231) that are extended to also support SRv6.

This might be a matter of style - the PCE WG documents do prefer longer
Introductions that references base specifications that are being extended.

Thanks!
Dhruv



>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>