Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)

Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com> Sat, 27 March 2021 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <msiva282@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 02A023A0D81; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 12:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.837
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.837 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 Sge2AiRS7T2b; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 12:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32b.google.com (mail-ot1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32b]) (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 0E7983A0D7E; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 12:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id t23-20020a0568301e37b02901b65ab30024so8448941otr.4; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 12:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
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=AqHT8mqNuyKLC34svdt0isI0kRV1FCP7gw4/3zpamdY=; b=JNuOTdkYDhAzAnSAmWVgUd+XeIsdpb0dgGgERqXgewzCERFnYqa0QzC7q8x/a5A/RO NLHNoMFcyoTtkpFBsU9YX/Kif0UNsVqt49+CkJY+PHx/aixi+Xjf0MvD9FVWefat+BqK Erh1hqL3jPIVec3gR/Hsoe8hRPmzVzmvkMayCxWE7+JZihRsS5952Ioj/W4lEF2T2Htx 2tzryrPVnKAeDb86Z3CjJ6bDRu+T76kMzb3eQ2Uun29Fizl/NN3Tmu90eRmzkh2QmDG4 JIssKSI4MFvstdsP5XiDlePf1S3kpyZSzRs55B8N/dqttn0ru/IQfz1zL/NkXs0RXVGx /Vpw==
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=AqHT8mqNuyKLC34svdt0isI0kRV1FCP7gw4/3zpamdY=; b=gBNHh/JoLY2+Dw4vRFPr3vjUNX3khi5jevPvX4+NWkyldAysW+xuAlm/Pv/Bv7kF7+ YvP1iQn3tkZfqUq3Md1slaUlZnvoFqnOULc8SpaVG0ygjvqdj4FfirjdbRUSvqdTPFtF 5AKAUBlhYlJ7krMZ25fgVlouv5m4U3b/qXh68H91DIKRdbsrtefBpzz1Nbd3SPL4ZhqA iZPkM79guMvUVZ0P8+2Z4nOg+kkEKITjCbxSfNOlAOg9oGJ0OlY9SDtrSNMneTNL5t4x LepH/2IBYH09gMVwa2oJUTlrs88uKNUeSgj9zMQEzg6V4ct+jJcv/A/llTPkkYKQfDFl 84fg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531K24IkUKhASo/WHImE9adh/Rt/ZaimVtSLxuWsC4BvDr1W20LA +1w6vx1cPg/YtQ3j30iTl8aIcYK1zZrvsaIwGAQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyO4oaIwC8M0i2Bs+S7FGW3Wk6vSniVTxzFgNUdu14dyUvzJx302MbSuNLksITU35Y7M7d54xu8h93OzhNks5I=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:62d9:: with SMTP id z25mr17129965otk.194.1616871915965; Sat, 27 Mar 2021 12:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7010_1616065722_605334BA_7010_19_1_3f1d8d24-af98-f962-95ea-0e6ec46b738c@orange.com> <375C800D-2014-4D14-830E-0D15439B9F20@nokia.com> <a2f9686490a34a39af5f977cf59230b7@huawei.com> <B3B06655-1F99-416A-AF8F-9FA53E6DB0BB@nokia.com> <be741e7913304da8a3afd9b1f3cbd1fb@huawei.com> <CABNhwV044vY4tQP6OJhwDWAkMYnD+i=OVKURb1y8eJeMLSHL_A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV044vY4tQP6OJhwDWAkMYnD+i=OVKURb1y8eJeMLSHL_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 15:05:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CANJFx2T8ZBucUDM+D5UrJ-eF_EKA3Y-Qd2R-6ksX5U_vDJJzhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>, "Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <andrew.stone@nokia.com>, "draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org>, "julien.meuric@orange.com" <julien.meuric@orange.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000032d07c05be8954ba"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/J-ZSbnsZFFkSgptx94h9GW0ZxMQ>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
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: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 19:05:24 -0000

Hi Gyan,

BSID can be allocated for RSVP-TE as well, and yes, there are use-cases for
that. The proposed PCEP extension is equally applicable to both SR-TE and
RSVP-TE.

Thanks,
Siva

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:40 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> I support WG LC advancement of this draft for publication.
>
> I see there are a lot of comments related to a mix of verbiage related to
> MPLS label binding and Binding label SID confusion.
>
> Few comments.
>
> The draft title states “carrying binding label/sid in PCE based networks”
>
> In the abstract it states it is possible to associate a BSID with a RSVP
> signaled path.
>
> I don’t recall any RSVP extension to support concept of BSID usage on an
> active Candidate Path option ERO.  Can you refer me to the RFC that states
> how BSID is used with RSVP TE.
>
> For more clarity with this draft can we replace
>
> s/TE/s/SR as TE nomenclature refers to RSVP-TE and does add confusion
> where SR is SR.  When mentioned traffic engineered path please spell out or
> say SR path for clarity.
>
> Also the “TE-PATH-BINDING TLV” can we change to “SR-PATH-BINDING TLV”.
>
> The word “binding” is very confusing as it’s used interchangeably with
> label binding and binding SID.
>
> So I am thinking a more appropriate name for the TLV would be “SR-TE-BSID
> TLV”.  Makes it clear and concise the TLV is for SR-TE.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Gyan
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:45 PM Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks again for your help!
>>
>> Cheng
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:andrew.stone@nokia.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 2:42 AM
>> To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>om>; julien.meuric@orange.com;
>> pce@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07
>> (and Code Point Allocation)
>>
>> Hi Cheng,
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying the text in the document. Diff content looks good
>> to me, much clearer. Consider my comments resolved.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 2021-03-25, 10:49 PM, "Pce on behalf of Chengli (Cheng Li)" <
>> pce-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of c.l@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Andrew,
>>
>>     Thanks for your comments, please see my reply inline.
>>
>>     Also, the diff is attached.
>>
>>     Respect,
>>     Cheng
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:
>> andrew.stone@nokia.com]
>>     Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:21 AM
>>     To: julien.meuric@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
>>     Cc: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org
>>     Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for
>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     Overall Support WGLC. It's an important document in the world of
>> SRTE, and the document goes to good lengths to describe the various
>> scenarios and combinations.
>>
>>     Only one question I have for the authors and WG, for any further
>> clarification on the following text (section 4):
>>
>>
>>       The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message
>>        means that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which case
>> the
>>        binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy.
>>
>>
>>     I find the "governed by PCC local policy" a bit too vague and could
>> lead to implementation interop differences. Assuming a PCInitiated LSP that
>> been established with a BSID: If the PCE wants to withdraw the binding SID
>> , I interpret the document as the PCE would send a PCUpdate without the
>> TLV, but the behaviour is now up to PCC as per that text. if the PCC local
>> policy/implementation is to do nothing, how can the PCE explicitly
>> force-remove the BSID with a PCUpdate? In a similar manner, If the PCE does
>> not want to change the value but PCC local policy is to treat missing TLV
>> as remove, then PCE should always send the TLV in every PCUpdate (which I'm
>> okay with) which is not stated, otherwise the local policy/implementation
>> may interpret it as a removal compared to an implementation which may
>> interpret it as being okay to not send the TLV on every PCUpdate since
>> there was "no change".
>>
>>     In summary: might need a bit of a wording to further detail "PCE
>> wishes to withdraw" case.
>>
>>     [Cheng] You are correct, there was some issues with multiple
>> TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. This has been updated. See the diff.
>>
>>     The above text has been updated to -
>>
>>        The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means that the
>>        PCE does not specify a binding value in which case any previous
>>        allocated binding values are withdraw.
>>
>>     Further, the PCC's local policy aspect has been seperated out as -
>>
>>        In the absence of any instruction from the PCE, the PCC's local
>>        policy dictates how the binding allocations are made for a given
>> LSP.
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>     Andrew
>>
>>     On 2021-03-18, 7:09 AM, "Pce on behalf of julien.meuric@orange.com" <
>> pce-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of julien.meuric@orange.com> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi all,
>>
>>         This message initiates a 2-week PCE WG Last Call for
>>         draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07. Please review and share your
>>         feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This WGLC
>> will end
>>         on Thursday April 1st (no kidding).
>>
>>
>>         Moreover, we have received a request from the authors for a code
>> point
>>         allocation to support interoperability testing.
>>
>>         RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:
>>
>>         b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
>>         handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
>>         (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
>>         in an Internet-Draft.
>>         c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e.,
>> if
>>         there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
>>         specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
>>
>>         If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria, or
>>         believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other
>>         reason, please send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining
>> why. If
>>         the chairs hear no objections by Thursday, March 25th, we will
>> kick off
>>         the "early" allocation request.
>>
>>         Thanks,
>>
>>         Dhruv & Julien
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>         Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
>> informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>         pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous
>> avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>         a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>         Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
>> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>>         This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>> privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>         they should not be distributed, used or copied without
>> authorisation.
>>         If you have received this email in error, please notify the
>> sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>         As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
>> have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>         Thank you.
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Pce mailing list
>>         Pce@ietf.org
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list
>> Pce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>