[Pce] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Quan! LGTM!

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 8:40 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dhruv,
>
>
> Thanks for your review and suggestions!
>
> Please see inline with [Quan].
>
> The new version is attached. Thanks!
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Quan
>
>
> Original
> *From: *DhruvDhody <[e-mail]>
> *To: *熊泉00091065;
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> *Date: *2024年09月11日 23:26
> *Subject: **Re: [Pce] Re: I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt*
> Hi Quan, Cheng
>
> For this text ->
>
> The ASSOCIATION object should also be carried in PCInitiate
> message to indicate the SR policy association parameters as per
> [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp], if this path segment
> identifies an SR policy.
>
> Note that currently we do not have a way to signal if the path segment
> identifies a CP or a SR-Policy.
> (1) Is it required to be explicitly signalled?
> (2) Or should you simply state that the SR policy association needs to be
> included if the SR path belongs to an SR Policy?
>
> (3) Consider using normative keywords here MUST(?)
>
>
> [Quan] From my understanding, it is not required to be exlicitly indicated
> and it may need normative keywords MUST.
>
> So as you suggested, this text can be revised as following.
>
> "The ASSOCIATION object MUST also be carried in PCInitiate message to
> indicate the SR policy association parameters as
> per[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp], if this SR path belongs to an
> SR policy."
>
> What is your thought?
>
> ==
>
> Consider adding this text in the Introduction ->
>
> Although [RFC9050] defines the PCE as the central controller (PCECC) model,
> where the PCE can instruct each hop (including the egress) on the
> end-to-end path, PCE (as per [RFC5040], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281]) typically
> only communicates with the ingress node. However, since the path segment
> identifies the SR path on the egress node, the PCE must also communicate
> with the egress node. This document outlines a mechanism to use the
> existing stateful message exchange with the egress node to signal both the
>
> SR path and the path segment.
>
>
> [Quan] Thanks for your detailed texts. I think it is very great. It is
> very appreciated.
>
> I suggest to add this texts to the end of the introduction section. Please
> see the attachment. Thanks!
>
>
>
> ==
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv (as a WG participant)
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 12:17 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Cheng and Co-authors,
> >
> >
> > I have updated the draft as discussed and the diff file is attached.
> >
>
> > Please review and comment and I will submit it before this weekend! Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Quan
> >
> >
> > Original
> > *From: *ChengLi <[e-mail]>
> > *To: *熊泉00091065;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> > *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> > <[e-mail]>;
> > *Date: *2024年09月09日 17:42
> > *Subject: **RE: [Pce] Re: I-D Action:
> > draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt*
> >
> > Hi Quan,
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you mind to lead this update? If yes, please update the xml(You can
> > download it from the datatracker) and share the diff file for authors to
> > review.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am crazy busy on updating 10+ drafts recently. If you can help on this,
> > I will be very appreciated!
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Cheng
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> > *Sent:* Monday, September 9, 2024 11:23 AM
> > *To:* [e-mail]
> > *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Dhruv and Joel,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your suggestion!
> >
> >
> >
> > The adding texts in my last email mainly clarify the path segment related
> > parameters (e.g association) within an SR policy.  I think the PCE
> > communicates with the tail instead of a notification, for example, as
> > figure 3 shown, it send PCInitiate message to the egress PCC for PCE tail
> > notification, for example, as figure 3 shown.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree that the path segment is the first function that requires
>
> > communication with both tail and head end cause the the path segment should
> > be inserted at the ingress PCC and should be recognized at the egress PCC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>