Re: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com> Thu, 03 June 2021 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.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 141793A2EC5; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 00:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Q67p03dXW7dX; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 00:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4B693A2EC2; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 00:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4FwdHJ74YVz6Q2qn; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:45:48 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemm100006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.196) by fraeml738-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.219) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:54:54 +0200
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.56) by dggpemm100006.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.196) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:54:52 +0800
Received: from dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) by dggpemm500003.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.56]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:54:52 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>
To: "julien.meuric@orange.com" <julien.meuric@orange.com>, "draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org>
CC: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid
Thread-Index: AQHXU+mXzA+CEMAPhEactUiBLT8wWar5qNCggAhKHoA=
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 07:54:52 +0000
Message-ID: <e817928c50084382a5d2515e77cb0b55@huawei.com>
References: <1fac71ae-2c0b-d0ab-2829-12f45b2c54e9@orange.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.243.130]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/PFkPIR3MyXa2LhHFQTgD9D7bO-o>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid
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: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 07:55:05 -0000

Hi Julien,

We have updated to document to address your comments, please check.

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-09.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid/
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-09

Only one comment left: 

- The paragraph about by-PCE allocation should say what happens otherwise, i.e. error behavior.(Section 8)

I don't know what kind of error  will happen, it seems not error will occur.

Thanks for the deep review!
Cheng 





-----Original Message-----
From: Chengli (Cheng Li) 
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 9:18 AM
To: 'julien.meuric@orange.com' <julien.meuric@orange.com>om>; draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid

Hi Julien,

Many thanks for your comments! Will address the comments and then post the new revision for discussion ASAP.

Respect,
Cheng





-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meuric@orange.com
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 1:47 AM
To: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid

Dear authors,

Please find below the review of the aforementioned document.

_Summary_
The document looks ready for publication, but the fixes below should be considered.

_Issues_
None.

_Nits_
------
Abstract
---
- The phrase "network opacity" feels like a negative objective. How about "network confidentiality"?
- s/RSVP-TE signaled Traffic/RSVP-TE-signaled Traffic/
- s/Label Switching Path/Label Switched Path/

------
1. Introduction
---
- s/either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment Routing/set up using either the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment Routing/
- s/headend node/head-end node/  [x2, for consistency along the I-D]
- s/an Segment Routing Policy/a Segment Routing Policy/
- s/an Segment Routed (SR) Policy/a Segment Routing (SR) Policy/
- s/enables instantiation/enables the instantiation/
- s/type of interfaces or tunnel/type of interface or tunnel/
- s/SID-list/SID list/
- s/Path Computation Element Protocol/PCE communication Protocol/
- s/a network controller (acting as a PCE) /a PCE (acting as a network controller)/
- s/SID allocated by it/SID it allocated/ OLD
   A PCC could report the binding label/SID allocated by it to the
   stateful PCE via Path Computation State Report (PCRpt) message.
NEW
   A PCC could report to the stateful PCE the binding label/SID it
   allocated via a Path Computation LSP State Report (PCRpt) message.

- s/Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd) message/Path Computation LSP Update Request (PCUpd) message/
- s/an MPLS label or SID/an MPLS label or a SID/
- s/PCE based/PCE-based/

------
3. Terminology
---
- "TLV" is flagged as "well know" in the RFC Editor's list
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt): it can safely be removed from this section (otherwise, it should have been expanded at 1st occurrence in the introduction).
- "PCE" is similarly flagged, but PCC and PCEP aren't, so it can be kept (adding a period at the end of the line).
- s/Path Computation Element Protocol/Path Computation Element communication Protocol/

------
4. Path Binding TLV
---
- s/TLV is called/TLV called/
- Since it's already allocated, Figure 2 may include the codepoint, i.e.
"Type = 55".
- s/TLV comprise of:/TLV comprises:/
- s/and first 20 bits/and the first 20 bits/
- s/a 16 octet IPv6 address/a 16-octet IPv6 address/
- s/Note that, multiple/Note that multiple/
- s/Following flag/The following flag/
- s/For the BT as 0/When the BT is 0/  [idem w/ 1 and 2]
- s/the 32-bits represent/the 32 bits represent/
- s/the 128-bits represent/the 128 bits represent/
- s/This section specify/This section specifies/
- s/The Binding Value consist of/The Binding Value consists of/
- s/The 128-bits IPv6 address/The 128-bit IPv6 address/

------
5. Operation
---
- s/via PCRpt message/via a PCRpt message/
- s/send PCErr with/send a PCErr with/
- s/existing instances/the existing instances/
- s/the old binding value/the former binding value/
- s/the old TE-PATH-BINDING TLV/the former TE-PATH-BINDING TLV/
- s/Note that, other instances/Note that other instances/
- s/a specific binding value(s)/a (or several) specific binding value(s)
- s/Note that in case of an error,/Note that, in case of an error,/
- s/can carry/can include/
- s/request withdrawal/request the withdrawal/  [x2]
- s/the old binding value/the former binding value/
- s/the old TE-PATH-BINDING TLV/the former TE-PATH-BINDING TLV/
- s/making the length field of the TLV as 4/bringing the Length field of the TLV to 4/
- s/request PCC/request a PCC/

------
8. PCE Allocation of Binding label/SID
---
- s/on its own accord/of its own accord/  [x2]
- s/A PCC would set this bit/A PCC MUST set this bit/
- s/A PCE would set this bit/A PCE MUST set this bit/
- s/towards PCC/towards the PCC/
- s/a PCE would set this bit to 0/a PCE MUST set this bit to 0/
- s/a PCE could set/a PCE MUST set/

- OLD
A PCC could request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID by setting P=1, D=1, and including...
  NEW
To request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID, a PCC MUST set P=1, D=1, and include...

- s/The PCE would allocate/The PCE SHOULD allocate/
- The paragraph about by-PCE allocation should say what happens otherwise, i.e. error behavior.
- s/out of scope of/out of the scope of/

------
9. Implementation Status
---
- Huawei: "An experimental code-point is used and plan to request early code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption." If the implementation doesn't use the early allocated code point, I wonder if it was worth the effort.
- Cisco: "An experimental code-point is currently used." Currently in April 2021? Same comment as above.

------
11. Manageability Considerations
---
- s/the policy based on which PCC needs to allocates /the policy the PCC needs to apply when allocating/
- s/Mechanisms defined/ The mechanisms defined/  [x4]
- s/to PCEP extensions defined/to the PCEP extensions defined/

------
12. IANA Considerations
---
- The new Error-Type entry should include Error-value 0 as Unassigned.

------
14. References
---
- When reading section 7, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6 really felt like a normative reference: it should be moved to section 14.1.

------


Cheers,

Julien