Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: (with COMMENT)

Dhruv Dhody <> Tue, 24 September 2019 06:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254AD120119; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4R-zD4H9swyK; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFAB4120113; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b19so1591320iob.4; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=urqBtNrTxCGd07q6KjY+cV5PAO8JMeBVb/gwdWDpSUA=; b=sVKx8SmY/P6h4p0azyLtkrzfCDf8gHxnDp+M8JT3sokOJqvg2uxXL9eKTPvmsPOYfP TDTtrhHjikZCiclEtbmjKsExIGNUaKQ5OiDvgfrKRYiywA/FilDJNMPdTj+3GSxR6xaY 99c9Hbq3Ub5DzwZVzokM2rAwXuDmE+a0WcyYZDUGoq3lPQ0LEueN/CIBPTsQNxRx7wwX Q+UsiJ1xIR2wNlXMU23zc7YqLBbKn6fEhV3KYCsLKGO6eb5fKAvfMzL1KLvM1VPr0ka+ /iFu4WeL2b4e+NzgWpFpm3mF8clXz0ZnGFtEicxdPaCBtcv0tz6gbUeugVndpClF/xbe Gp/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=urqBtNrTxCGd07q6KjY+cV5PAO8JMeBVb/gwdWDpSUA=; b=DpnCchWQbUEcREVIstZ/jXOlydkKMf2QIfKgsPk9JQATNZF+BQZ6AVeHh15J4PH73Z mCLHKElL4Wh6JztAiAGv6eDa1B/oUmQ7sHOYIvpyeqCLvk9BPAV/ezaI5xi74HhNjZqn 43xuWjjiyUMcal7V52NhT7efeYNnCsmlRC3EPee+Wm5O9rsEQYH6CCefqCLl0PDLQE61 1ekHBVs1IgYte36vwTxIJlKtGake7v3St4SXLGGwf3b+owSW3aCQzmgS/zlJr7qcaqvX jdArZ97AIuYnDlt0JOsp6SdBSe6Uj+gVG/Q1+NxHb2DCrP5MKQeRnq9uegrDBz3NJPoC nw2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUF6PwgNSzVb8d6M/+/pCSz4Z1/M4z1EzPpgwfE/9bQmfictgrv U16SeR1fRlEQs/F/Zq3LKlKSRG4Re3vohv7K51945Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy406AEzDFEK2bxNEIO5wMI0KKZb5+tyeuTpQu+3kuX7baGTNRYG8mpZwzNacggXeOSbW8BEKqCma2NNpC8IgU=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c38f:: with SMTP id t137mr1726447iof.137.1569305364401; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dhruv Dhody <>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 11:38:48 +0530
Message-ID: <>
To: Roman Danyliw <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, Julien Meuric <>, pce-chairs <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:09:29 -0000

Hi Roman,

Thanks for your comments. Few thoughts...

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 2:31 AM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
<> wrote:
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** Section 3.2.  It took me a bit to understand that the Path Protection
> Association TLV goes in an ASSOCIATION Object per Section 6 of
> [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].  On initial reading of “[t]he Path Protection
> Association TLV is an optional TLV for use with the Path Protection Association
> Type” this relationship wasn’t clear.  I’d recommend an editorial update to
> make it clearer.  I believe this is related Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS #5 (which I
> support).

This is updated to "The Path Protection Association TLV is an optional
TLV for use in the ASSOCIATION Object with the Path Protection
Association Type."

> ** Section 3.2  The protection type field specifies the protection type of the
> LSP.  Section 1 notes that “one working LSP [can be associated with] one or
> more protection LSPs using the generic association mechanism.”  Assuming a case
> were multiple protection LSPs are specified, is it valid for the protections
> type to be different?

An explicit error text has been added to make sure LSPs within the
association group has the same Protection Type.

> ** Section 4.5.  For clarity, I would recommend being precise with the exact
> code point names when discussing conflicting combinations of protection types.
> For example, s/1+1 or 1:N/1+1 (i.e., protection type=0x08 or 0x10) or 1:N
> (i.e., protection type = 0x04) with N=1 per <insert IANA registry name>/

Based on Barry's comment this was simplified and now we have just two
case 1+1 and 1:N. The protection type values could be added in

> Baring these combinations, are other any other remaining combinations of
> protection types legal given different protection LSPs in the same PPAG (e.g.,
> 0x1 + 0x2)?

As per RFC 4872, all "other" values are reserved.
As per Ben's comment, this was added - "Any type already defined or
that could be defined in the future for use in the RSVP-TE PROTECTION
object is acceptable in this TLV unless explicitly stated otherwise."

> ** Editorial Nits:
> -- Section 1.  s/effect/affect/
> -- Section 1.  Per “When the working LSPs are computed and controlled by the
> PCE, there is benefit in a mode of operation where protection LSPs are as
> well”, I couldn’t parse the second clause.