Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04

I support the adoption given points rased by Dhruv are addressed ( post adoption in fine)

Cheers,
Jeff
On Jan 8, 2021, 1:32 AM -0800, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, wrote:
> Hi WG, Authors,
>
> Speaking as a WG participant...
>
> I find the functionality described in this I-D to be very useful. But,
> I have one concern that I would like to be addressed before adoption
> or at least get an agreement on (to be handled post-adoption).
>
> I am not in favor of how the PST is being used in the I-D. The PST is used -
> - between PCEs to indicate inter-domain TE processing
> - between PCE and the head-end (2 PST for RSVP-TE & SR each, but for
> inter-domain i.e also allocate and report stitching label)
>
> We basically need a mechanism to request allocation and reporting of
> stitching labels. I strongly suggest using a flag and/or a new TLV, I
> find the use of PST for this inappropriate.
>
> A weird side-effect of the current proposal is that every time we have
> a new PST defined (PCECC is post-WGLC), we would need another one for
> inter-domain.
>
> Moreover, wouldn't it be better if this I-D is independent of the
> per-domain path setup type? Section 6.3 allows for mixed technologies
> and the protocol procedures between cooperating PCEs can be defined
> such that they are independent of the per-domain path setup type to
> allow for any current or future path setup types. I see no reason to
> differentiate between RSVP-TE and SR (section 6.2 is all about
> forwarding on border nodes, and not about PCEP).
>
> I discussed this with the authors earlier, where we basically pushed
> the can down the road, I hope we can resolve this quickly now :)
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
> (As a WG participant)
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 6:23 PM Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi WG,
> >
> > This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> > draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04.
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-04
> >
> > Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
> > - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are
> > you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to
> > the list.
> >
> > To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end on
> > 11th Jan 2021 (Monday).
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Dhruv
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pce mailing list
> > Pce@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce