Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the BSID draft

["Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,

It is more clear now, thanks. The P=1 basically means to allocate from PCE controlled space, while P=0 means to allocate from PCC controlled space.

I would just suggest to make the last sentence more specific to reflect this:

Current:
"PCE would directly allocate the label
   from the PCE-controlled label space using P=1 as described above,
   whereas PCE would request for the allocation of a specific BSID with
   P=0 as described in Section 4."

Proposed:
"PCE would allocate the label
   from the PCE-controlled label space using P=1 as described above,
   whereas PCE would request for the allocation from the PCC-controlled label space
   using P=0 as described in Section 4."

Thanks,
Mike.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 11:24 AM
To: Siva Sivabalan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; pce-chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the BSID draft

Hi Siva,

I had a discussion with Mike, I explained that there are two different cases here:

(1) PCE requests a specific binding value to be allocated by PCC (section 4)
(2) PCE controls the label space and allocates the label directly (new section 7, text moved from PCECC I-D)

For (1) there is no dependency on PCECC capability!
Only for (2), which is a PCECC operation, the PCECC capability is checked.
The P flag helps to easily distinguish between the two cases.

Again, this is not a new feature, this was already part of a post-WG-LC I-D, we are moving the text to BSID I-D here when the issue was discovered during the RTGDIR review.

I added some more clarifications based on your and Mike's suggestions.
Here is the latest working copy -
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt

If there is any text that is not clear or a change you would like to see, please let me know.

Thanks!
Dhruv (as a WG member)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 8:28 PM Siva Sivabalan <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Dhruv,
>
> I also agree with Mike. Let's not make BSID ID dependent on PCECC capability.
>
> Thanks,
> Siva
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:58 AM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dhruv,
>>
>> My concern is about a PCC that DOES support PCE assigned BSID, but that DOES NOT support PCECC. Your latest diff still says that PCECC capability is needed for this PCC to be able to make use of PCE assigned BSID.
>>
>> IMHO it should not be necessary to bring in support for PCECC, which is quite a large extension, just to allow a PCE to send down a BSID label to the PCC. PCE may have some other mechanism to figure out whether a BSID label is allocated or not.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 11:38 AM
>> To: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Siva Sivabalan <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; 
>> [e-mail]; pce-chairs 
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the 
>> BSID draft
>>
>> Hi Siva, Mike,
>>
>> I have made an update to add more clarity in section 7.
>>
>> Commit: 
>> https://github.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/commit/5c7e4625e8491fdece9007bec07
>> 6a654bbeeaf93
>> Diff:  
>> https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce
>> -binding-label-sid-05&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdho
>> dy/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt
>>
>> Just to clarify, this is not a new requirement, all that is being done is moving the text from the PCECC I-D (which was already in post-WGLC) to the BSID I-D. It is also marked that this feature is optional and used only in the case the implementation also supports PCECC operations and no change is made to any existing operations that could lead to any backward compatibility issues.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dhruv (as a WG member)
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:43 PM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I’m also concerned about having PCECC as a requirement for anything in that draft. It would break backward compatibility.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Mike.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Pce <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Siva Sivabalan
>> > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 7:13 PM
>> > To: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
>> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> > pce-chairs <[e-mail]>
>> > Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to 
>> > the BSID draft
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Dhruv and all:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Section 7 states:
>> >
>> > Section 4 includes a case where a specified value for the binding  label/SID is requested to be allocated by the PCC.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Section 4 (of v5) states:
>> >
>> > If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it 
>> > may do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a 
>> > TE-PATH-
>> >
>> > BINDING TLV.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Could we please add a bit more clarity to the motivation for the proposed change ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Also, we may want to indicate that how a PCE figures out the available labels on a PCC, etc, is outside the scope of this ID.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Siva
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 8:41 AM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi WG, Authors,
>> >
>> > As part of the handling of RTGDIR comments [1] for the PCECC I-D 
>> > [2], it was discovered that it is a better idea to handle the 
>> > Binding SID allocation by the PCE in the BSID I-D [3]. Julien and I agree.
>> >
>> > Also, it makes sense to move the new P-flag in the LSP object here 
>> > (from path segment WG I-D [4]).
>> >
>> > Cheng and I have this proposed update -
>> >
>> > Diff:
>> > https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-p
>> > ce- 
>> > binding-label-sid-05&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdh
>> > ody /ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt
>> >
>> > Please let us know if anyone has any concerns with this approach. 
>> > This draft is in our WG LC Queue [5].
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > Dhruv/Cheng
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/4n6FpBoDHjnGppKH4bcVo
>> > tUu
>> > _hE/ [2]
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-
>> > pce
>> > -controller/ [3]
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid/
>> > [4] 
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment/
>> > [5] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/wiki/WikiStart#WGLastCallQueue