[Pce] Comments on draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00

"Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)" <cyril.margaria@nsn.com> Thu, 21 February 2013 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <cyril.margaria@nsn.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 755B421F8D0D for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:44:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O4C78KmoLD5E for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEF521F8A90 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:44:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r1LBiYA6006979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:44:34 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC001.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.32]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r1LBhwcx004779 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:44:34 +0100
Received: from DEMUMBX006.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.6.244]) by DEMUHTC001.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.32]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:44:03 +0100
From: "Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)" <cyril.margaria@nsn.com>
To: "draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp@tools.ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00
Thread-Index: Ac4QKL6jmYErbjKLSeWghMsqzYggPw==
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:44:02 +0000
Message-ID: <8DC6547C806B644F998A0566E79E15920F7CFCCA@DEMUMBX006.nsn-intra.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.118]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-size: 2679
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1361447074-0000547A-5C012006/0-0/0-0
Subject: [Pce] Comments on draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-00
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:44:36 -0000

Hi,

I have the following comments on the draft.
1.      Abstract : you are not  only addressing GMPLS, but also multi-layer
2.      Section 1 "Introduction" : This is good you reference RFC6107, which defined this object for "MPLS and GMPLS", the multilayer extensions are not GMPLS specific, I think this should be either separated or put in an "active stateful PCE" solution (Which could be a merge of your document and draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp)
3.      Section 2 : There is already 2 applicability documents, I think those use case should be integrated there, especially as I find them good.
4.      Section 3 : this lists match the requierement of the draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req, you could simply refer to it and the solution document.
5.      Section 4 : this is RFC6107 related, this is non-GMPLS specific
6.      Section 5.1 : I should say I disagree : it is not required to have generalized endpoints, RFC5440 ENDPOINTS are sufficient, especially if you want to create an FA. Moreoever draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp already support this object and thus the GENERALIZED-ENDPOINTS OT.
7.      Section 5.1 : I think there is a misunderstanding : the label-request in the endpoint is NOT the one of the LSP to be signaled. This is addressed by the SWITCH_LAYER
8.      Section 5.2 : I think this is the only needed optional object.
9.      Section 5.3 : If no modification is needed, I think it would be better to state it in a section describing the missing information from draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp or any other solution)
10.     Section 5.4 : As the PCEP ERO is an RSVP ERO , this section seems more applicability/framework related.
11.     Section 6 : this is RFC6107 related, this is non-GMPLS specific

I think the document has good material, but address several separated points :
1.      Active Stateful PCE Applicability
2.      MPLS multi-layer aspects
3.      GMPLS (GENERALIZED-BW and SWITCH-LAYER)

I think the second point may have a document on its own, but the first and third point  could be managed by merges.


Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Cyril Margaria

Nokia Siemens Networks Optical GmbH
St.Martin-Str. 76
D-81541 München
Germany
mailto:cyril.margaria@nsn.com
Phone: +49-89-5159-16934
Fax:   +49-89-5159-44-16934
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Siemens Networks Optical GmbH
Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Gero Neumeier, Dr. Rolf Nauerz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 197143