[Pce] Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhrub,

With what Aijun described and what you wrote.. I think your suggestions
makes more sense to me now.

//Zahed

On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 8:48 AM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Aijun, Zahed,
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 11:42 AM Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Zaheduzzaman:
>>
>> Thanks for your review and comments.
>> Some detailed responses are inline below.
>> If you agree or have other suggestions, please let me know. I will update
>> the document accordingly later to reflect our consensus.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Aijun Wang
>> China Telecom
>>
>>
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> 代表 Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker
>> 发送时间: 2024年8月22日 20:11
>> 收件人: The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> 主题: [Pce] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on
>> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: (with COMMENT)
>>
>> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: 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-pcep-extension-native-ip/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thanks for working on this document. I have not comments from transport
>> protocol points of view.
>>
>> I have following comment/question though -
>>
>>  - In section 6.1 it says -
>>
>>               "The PCInitiate message SHOULD be sent to PCC which is
>> acting as
>>               BGP router and/or RR."
>>
>>    In Section 6.2 it says -
>>
>>               "The PCInitiate message SHOULD be sent to every router on
>> the
>>               path."
>>
>>    To me it seems like there is not way to bypass those SHOULDs and get
>> the
>>    route and session establishment procedure done. If that understanding
>> is
>>    correct then what are the exceptionsthiking about to let the
>> implementers
>>    skip that part? Also, if this understand is not true, then I would
>> expect
>>    this document to give warnings on the effects of skiping the PCInitiate
>>    messages.
>> 【WAJ】：For “SHOULD” in section 6.1 that you mentioned, the original
>> considerations are that such PCInitiate message may be sent to PCCs only(in
>> no-RR scenario); or be sent to PCC and RR(in RR scenario). If we use MUST,
>> it will be not appropriate for the no-RR scenario. Then, we select the word
>> "SHOULD". Or we change the text as below:
>> "The PCInitiate message MUST be sent to PCCs which are acting as BGP peer
>> routers and exchange routes directly, or MUST be sent to PCC and RR
>> respectively when two PCCs exchange the routes via the RR"
>>
>>
> Dhruv: Note that all routers including RR are acting as PCC. The use of
> "PCC and RR" gives an impression that RR is not a PCC.
>
> IMHO the use of normative text in this section is not helping. In version
> -34 this was lowercase should.
>
> My suggestion would be to change this to -
>
> "The PCInitiate message is sent to the BGP router and/or RR (which are
> acting as PCC)."
>
>
>
>> For "SHOULD" in section 6.2, actually there are some situations that such
>> PCInitiate messages doesn't need to be sent to every router. For example,
>> if the links between two router are not congest, it is not necessary to
>> control the forward path explicitly via the PCIniitiate message that
>> includes EPR objects. The traffic can depend solely on the default path
>> that calculated by the IGP algorithm to forward the traffic. This is the
>> reason that we use the word "SHOULD", instead of "MUST".
>>
>>
> This could be changed to -
>
> "For the purpose of explicit route addition, the PCInitiate message ought
> to be sent to every router on the explicit path."
>
> Do folks agree with this text change instead?
>
> Regards,
> Dhruv
>
>
>
>
>> Should we add such explanation into the context then?
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>>