Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

["Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Quan,

Updated version 06 (which includes suggestions from Ran and from you) was submitted.

Regards,
Samuel

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 10:57 AM
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05




Hi Samuel,



Thanks for your work!

Yes, I agree with you. It seems good to me with “PCEP extensions described in this document can be used with any Path Setup Type.” LOL.



Best Regards,

Quan


Original
From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To: 熊泉00091065;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
Date: 2023年12月15日 17:25
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Quan,

What about modifying that statement from:

“PCEP extensions described in this document are applicable to all Path Setup Types.”

To something like:

“PCEP extensions described in this document are not restricted to any specific Path Setup Type.”
Or
“PCEP extensions described in this document can be used with any Path Setup Type.”

That way we will not really say that it is applicable to all, but at the same time we will not block anybody from using it if required with any other setup type in the future?

(I would still prefer not going into route of excluding/including specific setup types).

Thanks a lot,
Samuel

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 7:09 AM
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05


Hi Samuel,



Thanks for your detailed explanation!

I am not sure either about the PCECC and BIER-TE. To me that I may recall, for example( maybe not right), the path-recomputation TLV is in the request message from PCC to PCE, but there is no request message in PCECC mode. And for BIER-TE, it may has no requirement for path recomputation.

I agree that a lot of PCEP objects/TLVs which are defined generically. But It may be not appropriate to state that they are applicable to all Path Setup Types. The extensions can be used when it is required in any of path setup type.

It looks both good to me if you keep or drop the sentence. Thanks!



Best Regards,

Quan




Original
From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To: 熊泉00091065;
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
Date: 2023年12月14日 18:16
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Guan,

By any chance, do you know about some specific reason why we would have to block for example path-recomputation TLV for BIER-TE or PCECC?

To me something like ability to block path re-computation on PCE for specific LSP is generic extension. Whether there is practical use for specific path setup type is different question, but we don’t need to block such extension because of that (we have a lot of PCEP objects/TLVs which are defined generically and just not usable for LSPs of specific setup type).

I personally consider having explicit list of supported path-setup types as less future proof (that’s why I modified based on comment from Dhruv to all setup types as I considered it as cleaner solution).

For Strict-path flag from section 3.1 – that is slightly more questionable, but in general we are again talking only about bringing up O flag from RP object from stateless messages (PCReq/PCRep) to stateful messages (PCRpt,PCUpd,PCinit). So something what was already supposed to be supported by all setup types.

So is there really something what needs to be explicitly blocked? I can rather imagine explicitly defining behavior for specific setup type (like BIER-TE or PCECC) for any of those extensions if we can see added value in using it, but behavior is not clear (that can be still done after adoption and discussion with PCE WG or authors of RFCs/drafts introducing those setup types).

Thanks,
Samuel

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 10:22 AM
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05


Hi Samuel,



Thanks for your quick reply!

Yes, I agree with you. The extensions may be applicable for RSVP-TE,SR,SRv6,native IP, but I am not sure about it with BIER-TE and PCECC.

It works well for me to explicitly describe for each extension whether it is generic or applicable to specific setup type.

Thanks for your work!



Best Regards,

Quan






Original
From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
To: 熊泉00091065;
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
Date: 2023年12月14日 16:27
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Quan,

(sorry I sent it before finishing mail)

Originally we listed explicitly only RSVP-TE and SR-TE and then we modified based on comments from Dhruv to all setup types (attached mail).

Extensions covered in this draft were introduced to support required extensions for CS policies, but at least some of those extensions (if specific section is not describing something else) is potentially applicable to other setup types. E.g. extensions from section 3.2 for blocking re-computation.

We can still drop that specific statement and explicitly describe for each extension whether it is generic or applicable to specific setup type only. Would that work for you?

Thanks,
Samuel

From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:24 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

Hi Quan,

Originally we explicitly listed

From: Pce <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 7:53 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05


Hi Dhruv,



I support the adoption of this draft. Thanks for the work from authors.

But I am confused about section 1 "PCEP extensions described in this document are applicable to all Path   Setup Types".

This draft mainly focus on the Circuit Style Policies and SR policy but path setup types include RSVP-TE,SR,PCECC,SRv6, Native IP TE path  and the newly adopted BIER-TE.

I suggest that it is better to provide clarification about other path setup types or remove this sentence.



Thanks,

Quan



<<Hi WG,



<<This email begins the WG adoption poll for

<<draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/Should this draft be adopted by the PCE <<WG? Please state your reasons - Why

<</ Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing

<<to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.



<<Please respond by Friday 15th Dec 2023.



<<Please be more vocal during WG polls!



<<Thanks!

<<Dhruv & Julien

--- Begin Message ---

A new version of Internet-Draft
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-06.txt has been successfully
submitted by Samuel Sidor and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:     draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions
Revision: 06
Title:    PCEP extensions for Circuit Style Policies
Date:     2023-12-15
Group:    pce
Pages:    11
URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-06.txt
Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/
HTML:     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-06.html
HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions
Diff:     https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-06

Abstract:

   This document proposes a set of extensions for Path Computation
   Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Circuit Style Policies -
   Segment-Routing Policy designed to satisfy requirements for
   connection-oriented transport services.  New TLV is introduced to
   control path recomputation and new flag to add ability to request
   path with strict hops only.



The IETF Secretariat

--- End Message ---