[Pce] Please confirm whose name the SR Policy Name TLV carries in the draft

huruizhao <huruizhao@huawei.com> Tue, 19 May 2020 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <huruizhao@huawei.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 DC53D3A109D; Mon, 18 May 2020 19:08:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M8Zjy4JUXp7X; Mon, 18 May 2020 19:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D0D83A109B; Mon, 18 May 2020 19:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml729-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4E30B703CFA7218D4664; Tue, 19 May 2020 03:08:10 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml729-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.80) by lhreml729-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 19 May 2020 03:08:10 +0100
Received: from DGGEMI403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.136) by lhreml729-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.80) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 19 May 2020 03:08:09 +0100
Received: from DGGEMI529-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.128]) by dggemi403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.3.17.136]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Tue, 19 May 2020 10:08:03 +0800
From: huruizhao <huruizhao@huawei.com>
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp@ietf.org" <draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp@ietf.org>
CC: Lihanlin <lihanlin@huawei.com>, Tanren <tanren@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: Please confirm whose name the SR Policy Name TLV carries in the draft
Thread-Index: AdYtglJwjl+UJLj3TM+QkQiWbxIINg==
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 02:08:01 +0000
Message-ID: <4550B012882B0A4482C132CAB19DDA5905813553@dggemi529-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.148.138]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4550B012882B0A4482C132CAB19DDA5905813553dggemi529mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ZOv2vQoTWHMc63xT0WOxIIYFa_o>
Subject: [Pce] Please confirm whose name the SR Policy Name TLV carries in the draft
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 19 May 2020 02:08:17 -0000

Hi authors,
  In the section 5.2 of [draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-05], SR Policy Name TLV is defined to carry Policy name. Policy name and Candidate Path name have different definitions in [draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06#section 2.1/2.6]. And there MAY be ambiguity here, I think this TLV carries name to Candidate Path instead of name to Policy.  The reasons are :

(1) There are multiple sources for the SR Policy of the head node. There will be multiple different Names to the same Policy if the PCE is allowed to deliver the Policy Name, which is difficult to manage.
(2) In [draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08#section-2.4.6],  the draft clearly states "the Policy Name sub-TLV to attach a symbolic name to the SR Policy candidate path". The realization of BGP for SR Policy has reference value for PCEP.

  Please confirm whose name the SR Policy Name TLV carries in the draft.

Kind regards,
Ruizhao