Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-10
Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 16:04 UTC
Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.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 0F77421F9CAD for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qelm+NXNxULs for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.orange.com (r-mail1.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7596D21F9CB1 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F723DE4005 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 18:06:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail1.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83882DE4002 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 18:06:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 3 Jul 2013 18:04:49 +0200
Received: from [10.193.71.100] ([10.193.71.100]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 3 Jul 2013 18:04:49 +0200
Message-ID: <51D44BA0.4090800@orange.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:04:48 +0200
From: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Organization: Orange
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pce@ietf.org
References: <51B82C91.3050304@orange.com> <51C8747F.50604@orange.com> <523C37072C291347B9730C9291CCA07D09269C@DB3PRD0411MB427.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <51CABA62.3080703@cttc.es>
In-Reply-To: <51CABA62.3080703@cttc.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2013 16:04:49.0291 (UTC) FILETIME=[0B790DB0:01CE7807]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-10
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 16:04:57 -0000
Hi. Besides the previous comments already raised, mostly on section 2, I would add the following: ---------- Title + Abstract + Introduction ----- s/Path Computation Element Protocol/Path Computation Element Communication Protocol/ [x3] ---------- Section 2 ----- s/flag is clear, then as defined in [RFC5440],/flag is clear then, as defined in [RFC5440],/ ---------- Section 5 ----- Another protocol name without "communication", but no need to add it there since it is the current name of the registry... ---------- Section 6 ----- s/SHUOLD/SHOULD/ [already mentioned by Robert] ---------- Best regards, Julien Le 26/06/2013 11:54, Ramon Casellas a écrit : > El 26/06/2013 9:40, Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich) escribió: >> Support. >> >> I have a few remarks : >> 1) The <svec-list> definition does include the definitions from >> RFC5541 and RFC5557, the RFC5557 did not include the [<metric-list>] >> element, should this fixed by RFC5557 errata to match the >> pce-vendor-constraints definition? >> >> 2) This document include the XRO in the svec-list, but not in the >> <request>, where should it go in the <request>? >> >> 3) the Path key expansion requests, nor monitoring are considered, >> is it OK? Basically should a new document take into account all the >> existing RFCs grammar element or should it cherry pick (and based on >> which criteria) >> >> 4) RFC5440/RFC6006/pce-vendor-constraints compatibility: >> RFC5440 indicates that the object order MUST be followed, >> RFC6006 did change the object order defined in RFC5440: >> - RRO list and RRO bandwidth should follow the <ENDPOINTS>, >> not the <metric-list>, >> - 3 BANDWITH objects are allowed >> - [<OF>] is before the [<LSPA>] in RFC6006 but after the >> [<metric-list>] in RFC5541 >> pce-vendor-constraints does use the [<OF>] definition of >> RFC5541 (after [<metric-list>]), add the [<RRO>] (without >> [<BANDWIDTH>]) before the [<IRO>]( in contrary to RFC6006, which put >> the RROs after the endpoints) >> >> The object order are not consistent, which is not very good for >> implementation (need to support the different variation) >> >> I understand the need for a different grammar in RFC6006, my >> preference would be to define one p2p grammar and one p2mp grammar >> (as this is in the RP this is not perfect, but OK from implementation >> point of view) (as in gmpls-pcep-extensions). >> For the other points think this could be covered by erratas in the >> original documents. > > Dear all, > > I share Cyril's comments. In my humble opinion, we are more and more > having a set of documents with grammars selecting only some objects > from existing documents and not covering them all and, once integrated > in a single implementation, it becomes harder to make sense of all > them (e.g. "bandwidths" made worse later with also > GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTHs). Ordering constraints are also a problem that > would need to be addressed. > > Below a minor review. The draft is quite clear and self-explanatory > (all my comments are minor) . > > > OLD > The object can be present in two places within the PCReq message to > enable it to apply to a single path computation request or to a set > of synchronized requests > > Sorry to be picky, but I count three :-) within a SVEC, within an > individual request both as a direct constraint and within the endpoint > rro pair-list. Maybe just > > NEW > The object can be present to enable it to apply to a single path > computation request or to a set of synchronized requests. > > > > * I would, if not too much effort, separate the case where a PCE does > not parse/understand the VENDOR-INFORMATION object from the case it > does not support a given Enterprise number. In other words, the draft > could specify the procedures when a PCE finds a VERDOR-INFORMATION > object with an Enterprise number it does not understand (as done for > TLV, Section 2.1 deals with the case of "unknown object".) Maybe > something in the lines of "If the Enterprise Number is unknown to the > PCE, the PCE (...)". I think it could be useful to have a dedicated > error code for that. Alternatively Just add the text "If the > Enterprise Number is unknown to the PCE, it MUST treat that object as > Unknown" but I like this less. The curent text "if the P flag is set, > the object will be treated as mandatory and the request will either be > processed using the contents of the object" somehow covers it > implicitly, thuogh but I would like to see it explicitly written. > > OLD > > - The PCE determines how to interpret the information in the Vendor > Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it contains. > > NEW > > - The PCE determines how to interpret the information in the Vendor > Information object by examining the Enterprise Number it contains. > If the Enterprise Number is unknown to the PCE, it MUST treat that > object as an Unknown object. > > > > Note that the TLV text currently states > > - The PCE determines how to interpret the Vendor Information TLV by > examining the Enterprise Number it contains. If the Enterprise > Number is unknown to the PCE, it MUST treat the Vendor Information > TLV as an unknown TLV > > > > > * <request> ::= lacks a [<XRO>] after [<IRO>] since XRO is mentioned > > > > * <request> ::= I would suggest moving the vendor-info-list after > endpoints (for both p2p and p2mp) My personal preference would be > after metric list and objective function. endpoint-rro-pair-list at > least includes one mandatory ENDPOINTS object, making the mandatory RP > and ENDPOINTS objects appear first. > > > * The draft states "Thus, the PCReq message based on [RFC6006] is > encoded as follows". Much like RFC6006, the draft is ignoring the BNC > object in the grammar. Also it is not clear where in the PCReq it > should appear. RFC6006 also says that "The object can only be carried > in a PCReq message. A Path Request may carry at most one Branch Node > Object". But I am not sure how to specify a branch node list and a > non-branch node list. > > > * The draft just says "The Vendor Information object can be included > in a PCRep message in exactly the same way as any other object as > defined in [RFC5440]" I would suggest to provide a suggested > grammar/ordering which includes not only the vendor-information-list > but also othe RFC6006 extensions notably regarding > end-point-path-pair-list and ERO/SERO. As a bare minimum the draft > should refer to RFC6006 regarding to PCRep message instead of RFC5440. > > > * As RFC6006, the draft is ignoring the UNREACH-DESTINATION object and > is not present in the PCRep grammar > > > > Other "philosophical" comments > ============================= > > Although I understand it is inherited from RFC6006, it is unfortunate > that that we keep the name of endpoint-rro-pair-list, since it is more > and and more losing its meaning of a (endpoint, rro) pair list. > Dreaming on, I also believe it could useful to split into a P2P > grammar and a P2MP grammar, roughly as follows (as Cyril mentioned > this was also suggested for GMPLS extensions and clarifies RFC6006. In > any case, an implementation needs to parse the RP object to know if it > is a p2p or p2mp) > > <request> ::= <expansion> | <p2p_computation> | <p2mp_computation> > > <expansion> ::= <RP> <PATH-KEY> > > <p2p_computation> ::= <RP><ENDPOINTS> [<attributes>] > > <attributes> ::= CLASSTYPE LSPA BANDWIDTH metric-list > objective-functions vendor-info-list rro-bw-pair IRO BNC XRO > LOADBALANDING ... (all optional and parsed in any order for interworking) > > <p2mp_computation> ::= <RP><tree-list>[<attributes>] > > <tree-list> ::= <tree> [<tree-list>] > > <tree> ::= <ENDPOINTS> <rro_bw_pair> etc. > > Finally, as a a personal comment which I echoed when the draft was > polled, and althgouh I support this draft, I still hope that the > objects and TLVs defined in this document are not overused and that > objective functions, related metrics, and constraints in general are > defined following open processes. > > > Thanks > R. > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
- [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-const… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Ramon Casellas
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Robert Varga
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Robert Varga
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Oscar González de Dios
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Robert Varga
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Fatai Zhang
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-c… Adrian Farrel