Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce : clarifying the End Of Synchronization marker

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback.

> The intent here is to use a minimal PCRpt message, hence we explicitly exclude SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV and RRO. ERO is kept empty for the same case.
> I think we have not precluded other TLVs from appearing in EOS to allow future extensions.
> I do not think LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV should be carried here, as it serves no purpose and is not required -- section 7.3.1's MUST condition does not trigger, as 
> PLSP-ID=0 is a reserved value and does not identify an LSP.

Even if you think that LSP-ID should not be carried, it's not explicitly mentioned in the draft, so it's authorized.
Why not restricting EOS to the minimal case, and let potential future extensions to modify it ? To you forsee anycase that could require modification of EOS content ?

At least the text should use normative words.

Best Regards,

Stephane

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Varga [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 14:02
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce : clarifying the End Of Synchronization marker

On 06/21/2016 05:18 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Doing some interop testing between two vendors we falled into misinterpretation of the current text of the End Of Sync marker content.
> 
> Here is the current text :
> 
> "The end of synchronization marker is a PCRpt message with the SYNC
>    Flag set to 0 for an LSP Object with PLSP-ID equal to the reserved
>    value 0 (see Section 7.3).  The LSP Object does not include the
>    SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV in this case, it will include an empty ERO as
>    its intended path and will not include the optional RRO object in the
>    path.  If the PCC has no state to synchronize, it will only send the
>    end of synchronization marker."
> 
> The current text, IMO, has the following issues :
> - it uses non normative wording : "does not include", "will include" , "will not include". How do we need to interpret it ? MUST, SHOULD, MAY ?
> - it does not precise if it can include or not some other objects : can it include an LSP-Identifier object (with all fields to 0) ?

The intent here is to use a minimal PCRpt message, hence we explicitly exclude SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV and RRO. ERO is kept empty for the same case.

I think we have not precluded other TLVs from appearing in EOS to allow future extensions.

I do not think LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV should be carried here, as it serves no purpose and is not required -- section 7.3.1's MUST condition does not trigger, as PLSP-ID=0 is a reserved value and does not identify an LSP.

> It would be good to enhance the text to better describe the content of EOS.
> 
> We suppose that in case there is an issue with the encoding of the EOS marker, the following behavior will be applied, could you confirm ? (typically bad encoding of EOS marker) :
> " The PCE does not send positive acknowledgements for properly received
>    synchronization messages.  It MUST respond with a PCErr message with
>    error-type 20 (LSP State Synchronization Error) and error-value 1
>    (indicating an error in processing the PCRpt) (see Section 8.5) if it
>    encounters a problem with the LSP State Report it received from the
>    PCC and it MUST terminate the session."

Yes. This would trigger, for example, for PLSP-ID=0 and non-empty ERO.

Bye,
Robert


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.