Re: [Pce] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-10

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

Thank you for your careful review.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:06 AM Joe Clarke via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Joe Clarke
> Review result: Ready
>
> I have been requested to review this draft on behalf of the OPS Directorate.
> This draft describes PCEP extensions for MPLS-TE LSP automatic bandwidth
> adjustment with stateful PCE.  In general, I think the draft is well-written,
> and I appreciate the addition of the operational considerations section.  It is
> in that section I have a couple of comments.
>
> In section 6.2 you say:
>
> A Management Information Base (MIB) module for modeling PCEP is
> described in [RFC7420].  However, one may prefer the mechanism for
> configuration using YANG data model [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang].
>
> However, when you look at that MIB module, there is only one read-write object.
>  On top of that, the IESG has mandated that new MIB modules should not have
> read-write objects.  I think your language pointing one to the YANG module
> should be stronger.  Perhaps:
>
> A MIB module for gathering operational information about PCEP is defined in
> [RFC7420].  Additionally, the YANG module defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
> provides for both configuration of PCEP as well as operational management.
>

This is a good suggestion, we will update.

> ===
>
> In section 6.6, do you have any more concrete recommendations on a reasonable
> limit of LSPs with auto-bandwidth that you have discovered from testing or
> operational experience?  Providing some data here may prove useful, even if it
> is somewhat anecdotal.
>
>

We discussed this and felt reluctance in putting a number down in the
RFC, esp when we don't do it for our base published RFCs (ex. such as
how many LSPs can be delegated to a PCE). I also checked with at least
one vendor and was told that it is quite dependent on the deployment
scenario and would let the operator decide.

Thanks!
Dhruv