Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

Adding a new concern about session setup

From: Pce <[e-mail]> on behalf of tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: 22 May 2023 12:35
From: Pce <[e-mail]> on behalf of Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
Sent: 16 May 2023 23:15

<tp2>
I do not understand how this operates.  I would expect there to be two phases. first the boxes are configured with the information needed by BGP and then one or more is instructed to initiate the BGP session.  Here I see PCInitiate providing the configuration information and s.6.1  then says that the BGP session the operates in a normal fashion; but if the PCE immediately attempts to initiate a session, it will likely fail because the peer is not yet configured.  I assume it must then back off, wait and try again later and then report success or failure (after an extended period of time).  Such behaviour could be found in a number of protocols.

None of this seems to be catered for.

Tom Petch


This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20 [1].

<tp>
I had a look and decided that it is mostly beyond me - I am not up to speed with all the 15 Normative References, in particular with RFC8821.  I would prefer that this I-D provided a better bridge to the material in RFC8821.

I note that RFC8821 is an as yet unapproved downref which reinforces that view.

I note too that the Abstract references this and 8735 as anchors which Abstracts must not do.

The I-D uses the word 'draft' in many places.  These must be changed.

The I-D has a large number of TBDnnn with no note requesting that they are replaced;  I find these easy to miss.

p.9 2)
seems to end mid-sentence.

The English is not quite in several places and could be confusing.  Thus p.5
"Further only one
   of BPI, EPR, or PPA object MUST be present.  "
I can interpret in two ways although subsequent text makes one the preferred one.

I suspect that there are many potential interactions with BGP, especially when things are not going quite right, and that the I-D does not cover them all.  The language used is not that of BGP (e.g. Established, speaker).  The timing too of BGP can be quite slow, in setup and in shutdown and I wonder how a PCC copes with that.

As I say, largely beyond me but the English needs some attention;  using the terminology of BGP would help.

Tom Petch


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 Wednesday 31st May 2023. We will also notify the IDR WG about this WGLC.

A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption and help us unclog our queues :)

Thanks,
Dhruv & Julien

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce