Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

[[e-mail]]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your reply!
I am not sure about this use case. From my understanding, serveral candidate paths may be associated to a SR policy in PCE environment, (if this may happen) but if all candidate paths are judged to invalid by PCE (for example as per draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-cp-validty), then the association should be removed. 
And another confusion about the "MBZ" in figure 3. May I know the full name of this abbreviation? Thanks!

Best Regards,
Quan

Original


From: MikeKoldychev(mkoldych) <[e-mail]>
To: 熊泉00091065;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2024年01月17日 00:47
Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12



Hi Quan,
 
Thanks for your review! Comments inline with <MK></MK>.
 
Thanks,
Mike.
 

From: Pce <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
 Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2024 10:01 PM
 To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
 Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
 Subject: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12


 
 
Hi PCE WG, Authors, I have reviewed the latest version in details and I feel this draft is good written and I support the progression to RFC.
And I have two minor suggestions.
A，I noticed the [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] and [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] are in the Normative References. I am not sure if the two drafts should be moved to Informative References when progess to RFC.
<MK>
Good suggestion, thanks.
</MK>
B, AS per [RFC9256] section 8.1, an SR policy is invalid when all candidate paths are invalid and the SR policy should  transit to invalid state including removing the SR Policy and BSID and so.
Maybe it is better to consider or clarify that in the PCEP SR policy. Thanks!
<MK>
Sorry, what do you mean to clarify it? Isn’t it already clear from RFC9256?
</MK>
Best Regards,
Quan
 
<<Hi WG,   <<This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for <<draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/Please indicate your support or concern for this <<<<draft. If you are opposed <<to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If <<you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and <<it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and <<nits are most welcome.   <<The WG LC will end on Monday 22nd January 2024.   <<A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption.   <<Thanks, <<Dhruv & Julien