Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 07 July 2022 23:18 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 C2971C15AB5D; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vVHpoUkywACY; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 D5CF2C15AB41; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 16:18:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 267NINqj014229; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 00:18:23 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41684604B; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 00:18:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBDC4604A; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 00:18:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 00:18:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (93.197.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.197.93] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 267NIMtP013496 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Jul 2022 00:18:23 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit@ietf.org
References: <CAP7zK5Zp6CWFvBTKHK53B8krYZWgZKvswjfd+hBek=DikVWc-Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP7zK5Zp6CWFvBTKHK53B8krYZWgZKvswjfd+hBek=DikVWc-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 00:18:22 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <027001d89257$da776f20$8f664d60$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0271_01D89260.3C3C9A70"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQFVgUVopSZ2Eh/HPoY4tjUKV/meZ655rRUQ
X-Originating-IP: 81.174.197.93
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-27002.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--32.972-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--32.972-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-27002.003
X-TMASE-Result: 10--32.971900-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: oCj5caaCQynxIbpQ8BhdbDjNGpWCIvfTWQ3R4k5PTnCWufoHnGUNfpiX Cz+61IS9eUjslqRojmZ9H7jaVSoagJr/5QhTM8mCo65WJt1k1O92ZYwNBqM6Iq0GJL2EV5pMCsY 6w2eIK0y5G1JIxLYAPsHN3B1pfglBQ269h8aSsZMYBi3BcmOD6QGo1vhC/pWjQG82tVSByGXCKy chs7yHQwAcBLGgEkDSxNhUweq/R2/l4nogCsu7yAXGi/7cli9jrthpnZXZolApoXuw5q0KwEdtb Ga4hVcM6zBPuCbw++nnaqDS132s4p/0X5WpCPYci95/KnWCU3Ss4IQYg+G3CL7LhjjzshwB5tfa zzE8JWNeR4KegOzMqfgHk5Z4GCSWRF8J0whn5t39KXlxhBAZbw7ykmiMbupKVxt8iPZNr2wqWAJ qxcSIYi5E7XYECjTeUnuq6tR+CtX/s+8Vrwj8j8x+nfdJm+PijlRp8uau9oYj0vSXSt1uP7QICu E7V6z9jQO5NdQooutmQGDcBqEA9f2jCjxUY+8SIj0zFI5DoJLCXeHJwJcT9q4xe76u1+qIJcs0z DGn5xiNIndKSIasUzsOdvA5nu/wA7dimDbca7idVNZaI2n6/503C0fPk8xKD49HCgrbwZSRRLRd +1kmrf11Tj/BVX6igDLqnrRlXrbS77Co4bNJXWvfiVSqJzu3i2QFaYS1v23pP8tMOyYmaA==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/a6JO_vbR4WowbJPfU5reALAmyFw>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 23:18:29 -0000

Hi,

 

I read through this draft as part of the adoption poll.

 

I found it quite hard to work out from the Abstract what the purpose of

the document is. The Introduction is a little more informative, but also

quite hard work.

 

It turns out, when you read the document, that two things are being

defined:

1. A set of attributes to allow a PCE to instruct a PCC as to which IFIT

   behaviours it should enable on a path.

2. A capabilities flags so that a PCC can indicate which IFIT functions

   it supports.

 

I think the Abstract might usefully read as follows.

 

   In-situ Flow Information Telemetry (IFIT) refers to network OAM data

   plane on-path telemetry techniques, in particular In-situ OAM (IOAM)

   and Alternate Marking.

 

   This document defines PCEP extensions to allow a Path Computation 

   Client (PCC) to indicate which IFIT features it supports, and a Path 

   Computation Element (PCE) to configure IFIT behavior at a PCC for a

   specific path in the stateful PCE model.

 

   The PCEP extensions described in this document are defined for use

   with Segment Routing (SR). They could be generalized for all path 

   types, but that is out of scope of this document.

 

The Introduction might also usefully change in that way.

 

---

 

While I appreciate that the authors are primarily concerned with SR, I

think the WG should carefully consider taking the authors at their word

and pursuing the generalisation to all path types. That can't be much

additional work, and it would surely make sense to get the solution to

be generic from day one.

 

---

 

Please move the requirements language from the front-matter to its own

section (probably 1.1).

 

---

 

With the clarification of the intent of the document, I would support 

the working group working on this document, and it could be adopted.

 

Regards,

Adrian

 

From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 24 June 2022 09:59
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06

 

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06.

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit/

 

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.

Please respond by Monday 11th July 2022.

 

Please be more vocal during WG polls! 

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien