Re: [Pce] Possible Errata regarding RFC6006

Quintin zhao <quintin.zhao@huawei.com> Fri, 13 December 2013 18:45 UTC

From: Quintin zhao <quintin.zhao@huawei.com>
To: Udayasree palle <udayasree.palle@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Possible Errata regarding RFC6006
Thread-Index: AQHO+ABnc5dvcNPul0CCR9Xt0cYYsppSbqzw
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 18:45:15 +0000
Message-ID: <11208E03C9803E4CB4C3D898F153D6C0306F0961@sjceml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <EFF3DD5FFB75AC4D89158F068C24F4BB39DB2217@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <EFF3DD5FFB75AC4D89158F068C24F4BB39DB2217@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_11208E03C9803E4CB4C3D898F153D6C0306F0961sjceml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "jpv@cisco.com" <jpv@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Possible Errata regarding RFC6006
Precedence: list

Udayasree,

The fragmentation is only for the request message only,  see section 3.3.1 of RFC 6006:

“The F-bit is added to the flag bits of the RP object to indicate to
   the receiver that the request is part of a fragmented request, or is
   not a fragmented request.”


There is no fragmentation function supported in reply message, so there is no need to have a error code for the reply message.

Regards,
Quintin

From: Udayasree palle [mailto:udayasree.palle@huawei.com]
Sent: 2013?12?13? 7:40
To: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions@tools.ietf.org
Cc: julien.meuric@orange.com; jpv@cisco.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Possible Errata regarding RFC6006

Hi All,
               Please check and let me know your suggestion

Regards,
Udayasree


From: Udayasree palle
Sent: 10 December 2013 15:38
To: 'draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions@tools.ietf.org'
Cc: julien.meuric@orange.com<mailto:julien.meuric@orange.com>; jpv@cisco.com<mailto:jpv@cisco.com>; adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Posasible Errata regarding draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions

Hi All,


3.15.  P2MP PCEP-ERROR Objects and Types

Error-Type=18; Error-Value=1: if a PCE has not received the last
   piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message to
   the sender to signal that it has received an incomplete message
   (i.e., "Fragmented request failure").  The PCE MUST send a PCErr
   message with a PCEP-ERROR object (Error-Type=18) and an Error-Value
   (Error-Value=1).

The fragmentation is done for both request and reply messages, but it looks like the error value is defined only for request.

Suggested Text:
               Make it generic

-        Remove the word ‘request’

-        Replace PCE with PCEP speaker

-        Update IANA


Error-Type=18; Error-Value=1: if a PCEP speaker has not received the last
   piece of the fragmented message, it should send an error message to
   the sender to signal that it has received an incomplete message
   (i.e., "Fragmented failure").  The PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr
   message with a PCEP-ERROR object (Error-Type=18) and an Error-Value
   (Error-Value=1).

Or

Add a new Error-Value!

How to handle this?

Regards,
Udayasree

[Pce] Possible Errata regarding RFC6006 Udayasree palle
Re: [Pce] Possible Errata regarding RFC6006 Quintin zhao