Re: [Pce] draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 10 March 2021 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.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 CB86F3A189A; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:09:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uWZhY2dS605N; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x136.google.com (mail-il1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7C2C3A1893; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:09:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x136.google.com with SMTP id s1so14165906ilh.12; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 19:09:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mKl5O+0zPDXP4619ZTzfXI67gx5V9TCb+9uXBJkWSYc=; b=skta+dhtTYQ1Bft/YY+Hk0Ow6rodN9eTOWlf45U62y8zdEBjJF6Hxew3rxX9ZKyhxP S1QnwDYK2ZpCe4I1CafqaNsyOMelVpSxG3cscRs/pRfmGN9f9oo1EBzlt+MRGLy30kuw seyAu3I1MNGrsM1BVonLnTLhlKzEwzKXNnjMUaFhtOlcTm7GGT/RdbyNRVQ+8ofqP/42 lkeHOmLOXv0tekoJHMUmM7I2LE4YsL1v6RBm1yqRKCM4oPw4JpBJzV/LWd9IwEbs+eG+ uRfsUjBAE1l1FmGBRkHF9gWP8S9iqLQMecB3sZDI48Yq8NVUxCcD8GE2opGNFKt4cC3U J5dA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mKl5O+0zPDXP4619ZTzfXI67gx5V9TCb+9uXBJkWSYc=; b=e4u/0JQ2M0bzWt7Vaf1yUgeBtS7x7nD3obZD2XJWLqa9rZVgY/O+lbSmCXCBuj5RU2 gGjASZi04OXUM0CE6crqG+L7xzUxAcwfj9ilLEI6EyLu4m+JxXulWBxRWkix3Nv2BXum eTC6kgUxNobOlAVZNPfQhYVQcEc2p+xQwpCYi3WcU/QmAwS1myir5sA+GMxTKrxvV4W+ Ynro/4NXvWlc351H9CxBZc3cGJLSLmOJ7cNJ1gsL5SPnrr/kCwdF60XSIXDD6JUcAxiM dXw4RBWuIZCqqkukWak4VR0mFxRMhkL5+eklVSmTvJsOThNPkw5ut1L+3ma58IixP5LV I5cA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530cjWBsuVa++xyDNCL7cGEOR5xb/WE19McoaWO4WNORv7JnSfk9 C5qr9CEXCcsMcrs+yAjfdpAOA/q+KPSK8IuO8BU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxpjUXkGC7klhCBznlCz8jpeqovZwn+s6xBYBHK0wiu2utW1AMEc/UzUhd6q7nmbPhyQFriUy6ZsH+JW7TkgY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:20ca:: with SMTP id 10mr1166933ilq.14.1615345779669; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 19:09:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM6PR08MB3978834687ACFA7C599AF90C91A10@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAP7zK5YUG2HhDqwCXbhAzO27P18GEL6Rdr6nkYBvW9yzCHLHjQ@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR08MB3978524B94C0FB4D21B6A1CF918E9@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAP7zK5buVgy=HhT-+ZnhYZcE1AYRmOxK9-Md=4FJxqu7BLK3Zg@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR08MB39780572111C11CDF6EFC7D4918B9@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <CAP7zK5YjxiMTnUT7zVHYDeYqxvQR8ESQf7ydngPYObVPHLU8uA@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR08MB397847235D7ADDF7C4B7D028919B9@DM6PR08MB3978.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <35FBCBF8-0EF2-4404-8AA8-C39C4F929249@juniper.net> <CAB75xn5QTTEKOLm_tvEteEWx0x2S4qWufFY_6P-CU8CXFaBF2g@mail.gmail.com> <252B18FD-D296-4E1C-AF75-1293511B3E4A@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <252B18FD-D296-4E1C-AF75-1293511B3E4A@nokia.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 08:39:02 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn7AnjtY9O6C07i9P3M=2rSGCo+UqQKnSaJajQsXPiTg=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <andrew.stone@nokia.com>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000063022b05bd25ffa7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/E0TJAsQra91gTasYPesajGxMtpw>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 03:09:45 -0000

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your email.

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:00 PM Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
andrew.stone@nokia.com> wrote:

> Hi Dhruv,
>
>
>
> *"figure out if the act of downloading the replication segment is
> considered a PCECC operation or a regular stateful operation"*
>
>
>
> Could you expand on how you see the fundamental difference of PCECC
> operation vs regular stateful? Or correct the following statements if
> incorrect or missing something (?):
>
>
>
>         PCECC : Explicit incoming/outgoing instructions on each hop end to
> end for a LSP that is sourced at a headend
>
>
>

I would say this is the first use-case. RFC 8283 also highlighted SR use
cases which are all about programming and coordinating across nodes (not
necessarily directly connected). IMHO the same is true for the SFC use
case.


>        Regular Stateful: Explicit outgoing instruction(s) on a headend
> where binding label could be used to help steer into that head end
>
>
>
>
>

And this has always seen as an LSP operation/state.


> The view I have of replication segment is it has a “family relation” to
> the unicast SR Policy, and specifically it’s usage of binding label and
> egress label stack. Key difference of course that replicating packets vs
> weighted ecmp egress forwarding. PCE can deploy a unicast SR Policy with
> the intention of using it on that targeted headend or even as a transit for
> an upstream headend to achieve label stack reduction. A replication segment
> has the same philosophy with the exception that a replication segment can
> be encoded to indicate if it's shared or tied to a specific tree. Important
> encodings (binding label, multi-path ero) are being leveraged from objects
> being delivered in the unicast use case. I do consider leveraging these
> same encodings and mechanisms consistent between unicast and replication
> segment, and also consistent whether it’s a root, bud or leaf - without
> having to define new and reusing the concepts defined in those related
> docs. Yes, PCECC defines similar concepts and objects but appears to me
> like we’d have to define more-new things to leverage it and have
> replication segment deviate from its unicast relative and in return it
> would be picking only a very small part of what PCECC is accomplishing.
>
>
>

I can understand your point of view when I look at the headend operation on
the replication node. It is the operation on the leaf nodes and
coordination of SIDs required that gives me a pause. I also understand the
wish to keep the PCEP message the same on the root, bud, and leaves.

But, the Replication segment is described as forwarding instructions. See
-

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-02#section-3
   A replication segment is set of forwarding instructions on a specific
   node.  As an example the push information on the Root node or swap
   and outgoing interface information on the transit nodes or pop
   information on the bud and leaves nodes.

Also, in all stateful operations, the unit of signaling is an LSP (RFC
8281, RFC 8664, SR Policy Candidate Path, Multipath ERO). I guess you see
the replication segment as an LSP operation (and so do the instructions
sent to the leaves).  I see them as central controller instructions that
require coordination across multiple nodes. This is a good discussion and I
am glad we are having it :)

Thanks!
Dhruv (as a WG member)



> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> *From: *Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Dhruv Dhody <
> dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 11:08 PM
> *To: *Tarek Saad <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Cc: *"pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>rg>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <
> pce-chairs@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Pce] draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and
> action.
>
>
>
> Hi Tarek,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your message.
>
>
>
> As I said to Hooman, the key is for WG to figure out if the act of
> downloading the replication segment is considered a PCECC operation or a
> regular stateful operation.
>
>
>
> Since the replication segment state needs to be programmed on the leaves
> and the replication node; plus coordination is needed for SID/labels
> across these instructions. I lean towards PCECC.
>
>
>
> And the argument for using CCI for PCECC operations is consistency and the
> ability to reuse concepts already defined. When an implementation supports
> multiple of these PCECC use cases, there will be consistency in
> implementation. But this is not written in stone and if the WG decides
> otherwise then that's that!
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dhruv
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 3:25 AM Tarek Saad <tsaad=
> 40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Dhuruv/WG,
>
>
>
> From the RBNFs below (extracted from the bottom of this email), the
> difference I see between the 2 proposals is that the PCE-CC approach
> requires a new P2MP CCI object just to carry the resplication-sid  (which
> can already be carried today w/mechanisms in
> [draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid without the CCI].
>
> Yes, both proposals I presume would work to signal the
> replication-segment. However, IMO, we need not mandate an approach
> (especially that the difference below is minimal and most vendors already
> have support for the “current” proposal). Let me know, and apologies if I
> misunderstood the proposals below.
>
>
>
> >>
>
> *Current:*
>
>    <Common Header>
>    [<SRP>]
>    <LSP>
>    [<replication-sid>] as described in
> [draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid]
>  [(<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)...]
>
> *CCI-Object:*
>
>    <Common Header>
>    <SRP>
>    [<LSP>] <- not included for shared case
>    <CCI> <- you can carry the replication-sid as TE-binding as a TLV here
>    [(<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)...] <- this is a list
>
> To Recap
> - you needed ERO and PATH-ATTRIB and you get that here!
> - the unit of signaling is a programming instruction and not a Path for
> the above case!
> - aligns with other use cases in PCEP
>
> <<
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tarek
>
>
>
> On 2/28/21, 5:24 PM, "Pce on behalf of Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia -
> CA/Ottawa)" <pce-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Dhruv
>
>
>
> *As per draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment, a replication segment
> allows a node (henceforth called as Replication Node) to replicate packets
> to a set of other nodes(called Downstream Nodes) or hosts in a Segment
> Routing Domain. *
>
>
>
> *A Replication segment can replicate a packet to directly connected
> nodes/hosts or to downstream nodes (without need for state on the transit
> routers). In some use cases replication segments can be stitch directly
> “Tree” or via a unicast segment routing domain “spraying”. In other use
> cases the replication segment can be a stand alone resource and act as a
> root and the leaf on the same node. In short a replication segment is a
> logical construct and behaves as a standalone resource, as an example it
> can be thought of as a binding SID on that particular node encoded via
> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid*
>
>
>
> *This is why the authors on this draft feel a replication segment does not
> fit the PCE-CC Architecture Design, as each replication segment is really a
> head-end resource or a root that does a form of replication regardless if
> it plays the role classified as a root, bud or leaf to deliver a multicast
> service. As well, the authors view is that encoding the data in a CCI
> object does not add enhancements, however introduces further complexity
> with new identifiers to be used in message exchange, new object codepoint
> and capability allocations, when the existing proposal based on simply ERO
> encoding using already defined objects achieves the intended goals
> consistently regardless if one would consider the role a node plays in an
> overall tree. *
>
>
>
> *In addition the concept of CCI object will create further complexity for
> the protection paths of the replication segment. The replication segment
> outgoing interfaces can be protected via a single protection ERO. The ERO
> object combined with draft-koldychev-pce-multipath will create the perfect
> solution for this. *
>
>
>
> *In conclusion to repeats the original point since a replication segment
> is stand alone resource on each node (as an example a shared replication
> segment as per draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy) with the function of
> providing a replication instruction on that node it really does not break
> the PCE-CC Architecture.*
>
>
>
> *I hope above clarifies the questions about PCE-CC decision.*
>
>
>
> *Thanks*
>
>
>
> *Hooman*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:00 PM
> *To:* Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>
> *Cc:* pce-chairs@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Hooman,
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:36 AM Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
> hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> [Dhruv]: I feel there is some misunderstanding here. The PCECC extensions
> defined a new object called CCI, with different object-types to be defined
> for various use-cases. There is common handling for all such instructions
> and it is defined once and can be reused across multiple use cases. I
> understand that you want to use the ERO object with multi-path, and that
> *is* fine, you could in fact easily define the RBNF in such a way that both
> CCI and ERO are included for the new CCI object type for SR-P2MP.
>
> Hi Dhruv
>
> I am not sure if I understand are you suggesting we include both CCI and
> ERO as an option and vendor chooses? What benefit does this have? How would
> this improve the interop?
>
> No, I did not say "or", it is not a choice!
>
>
> In PCEP when we communicate with the head-end we use Candidate Path as the unit
> of signaling (with Policy as an association). For programming
> instructions (and not paths) we use CCI Object. New CCI Object-type for
> each use case can be defined.
>
> I think your proposal to program the replication and leaf nodes as
> (section 3.4.2) -
>
>    <Common Header>
>    [<SRP>]
>    <LSP>
>    [<replication-sid>]
>    as described in [draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid]
>    [<ERO-Attributes Object>]
>    as per [draft-koldychev-pce-multipath]
>
> * RBNF is not correct, but I get the idea! I.e. you are signaling this as
> a path on the branches and leaves :(
>
> =
>
>
> What I suggested is that for programming the branch and leaf node, we
> should use CCI as a unit of signaling and you can include the ERO and
> PATH-ATTRIB along with the CCI. Note this is a new CCI Object-type and RBNF
> can be updated for it -
>
>    <Common Header>
>    <SRP>
>    [<LSP>] <- not included for shared case
>    <CCI> <- you can carry the replication-sid as TE-binding as a TLV here
>    [(<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)...] <- this is a list
>
> To Recap
> - you needed ERO and PATH-ATTRIB and you get that here!
> - the unit of signaling is a programming instruction and not a Path for
> the above case!
> - aligns with other use cases in PCEP
>
> Hope I am able to explain myself clearly and this helps!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
> Hooman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 5:01 AM
> To: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>
> Cc: pce-chairs@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.
>
> Hi Hooman,
>
> Please see inline...
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:36 PM Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
> hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dhruv
> >
> > Much appreciate your reply, Inline
> >
> > Thanks
> > Hooman
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:28 AM
> > To: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>
> > Cc: pce-chairs@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.
> >
> > Hi Hooman,
> >
> > Apologies! Missed replying to this email...
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:27 AM Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
> hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Chairs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Looking at the wiki page there was a comment on the sr-p2mp-policy
> draft.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy
> > >
> > > 109; More work is needed - align to PCECC, text needs to aligned to
> > > the PCE WG style
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The authors took an action to setup a meeting and discuss the
> alignment with PCECC farther. The final outcome of this meeting was
> unanimous agreement, by all the authors/vendors on the draft, to go forward
> with ERO object.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > As an individual I-D, it is up to the co-authors to decide the content
> of the I-D.
> >
> > The comment (and earlier discussions) was to make sure we maintain
> consistency across all our documents that we produce. RFC 8283 describes
> the PCECC architecture, where the PCE needs to interact with not only the
> head-end routers (the usual stateful/stateless PCE case) but also with the
> egress and the internal P routers. The WG has just sent the first PCECC
> extension for MPLS label allocation along the path to the IESG. For other
> use cases such as SR/SRv6 SID allocation as well as for the branch node in
> the P2MP LSP and Native-IP, all are under the PCECC umbrella. So far all
> use cases where the PCE needs to interact with other nodes beyond the
> ingress and provide instructions to them are using PCECC architecture.
> >
> > So when the PCE is interacting with the head end for SR P2MP Policy, it
> can use the usual stateful PCE extensions but when the PCE is interacting
> with the branch nodes and leaf nodes for replication segment, we strongly
> feel it should be described under the PCECC architecture. So you could use
> the ERO object for encoding the full P2MP path (and SR P2MP Policy) when
> interacting with the root node.
> > But when interacting with other nodes, use the PCECC technique i.e. a
> new CCI object type (which could be used with the ERO if needed). This
> would help you to not reinvent things as well as maintain consistency.
> > To reconfirm, the PCECC comment is related to section 3.3.3 & 4.5 only
> and not the whole document. If you still disagree please list the technical
> reason why so that the WG can evaluate them.
> >
> > HB> As I am sure you do appreciate there are many ways to skin the cat.
> TreeSID can be connected via unicast SR path and not every node needs to be
> programmed. In addition as explained the PCECC did not provide the with
> flexibility to configure backup/fast reroute paths and the current methods
> does provide that capability.
> > Again as mentioned we looked at PCECC very hard and tried to implement
> treeSID via this method but there were major short comings for backup and
> FRR paths.
> > There are multiple implementation in the field that is using the ERO
> object for treeSID with success.
> > Are the chairs suggesting that the working group is only dictating PCECC
> and is not open to any other option but PCECC for the purpose of
> programming the PCC and multicast?
> > We have been asking for adaptation since 3 IETF ago and we keep getting
> pushback because our implementation does not follow the PCECC, why is PCECC
> the only choice on the table? Why isn't the working group open to other
> options to solve the multicast requirements? Given the fact that the ERO
> has been implemented and is in the field and in multiple providers labs
> being tested with successful outcome, I think the WG should have a open
> view to this implantation. Especially when multiple vendors and providers
> (Cisco, Juniper, Nokia, Ciena, Bell Canada) to name a few have agreed to
> this implementation.
> >
> >
>
> [Dhruv]: I feel there is some misunderstanding here. The PCECC extensions
> defined a new object called CCI, with different object-types to be defined
> for various use-cases. There is common handling for all such instructions
> and it is defined once and can be reused across multiple use cases. I
> understand that you want to use the ERO object with multi-path, and that
> *is* fine, you could in fact easily define the RBNF in such a way that both
> CCI and ERO are included for the new CCI object type for SR-P2MP.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> > >
> > > The authors feel ERO object in addition to
> draft-koldychev-pce-multipath-04 - PCEP Extensions for Signaling Multipath
> Information (ietf.org) for backup paths is the easiest and the most
> efficient way to address the programming of a replication segment on PCC
> from to the PCE.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The authors would like to move forward with the adaptation call
> please. In addition the authors are open to discuss the ERO preference in
> an interim open session with the chairs.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The document has not been updated after 109, last we discussed this, we
> found that the document needed more work because it does not follow the way
> the PCEP extensions are usually defined. It follows a very unusual format
> (e.g. section 5) at places. It is good to provide examples but suggest it
> be done in a way that is more readable. Please follow the RBNF notations
> when specifying PCEP message changes (in a backward-compatible way). Some
> of your co-authors have vast experience in writing documents in this WG, I
> suggest taking their help. Hopefully, a more readable version will help you
> get more reviews.
> >
> > HB> sure this is cosmetics and we will follow the WG suggestion, that
> said this should not stop the adaptation call. The sooner we have
> adaptation call the sooner we can have input.
> >
> > HB> to close, as you mentioned some of the co-authors have vast
> experience in PCE WG and the same co-authors have agreed and recommended
> ERO implementation. As such I ask the chairs for adaptation call again
> ASAP. We will fix the cosmetics to be inline with WG recommendations asap.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hope this helps, and again accept our apologies for missing replying to
> this email earlier.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Dhruv & Julien
> >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Hooman
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>