Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20

Hi, Tom:

Thanks for your review.

I have uploaded the new version to address your comments.

I am trying to find some more convenient methods to describe the
un-allocated "TBDnnn" from the IANA. Do you have any suggestions that can't
be "too easy to miss"? 

My purpose is that once the IANA allocates the value to each of these values
according to our requests
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-
ip-21#section-14)

, I can replace them easily in the updated version.

For the interaction between BGP and PCEP, we think the paces or procedures
described in this document can be controlled by the PCE------Once the PCE
sends the command to PCC, it will collect the status of such command. Only
when the previous command is executed successfully, then the next command
can be issued. Section 6 cover the descriptions of main procedures.

For your other comments, please see replies inline.

Huaimo  also gives us more valuable suggestions to refine the document
offline. I have also incorporated them together in the updated version.

Thanks all you together!

Future reviews from other experts can be based on the updated version.

Best Regards

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

-----Original Message-----
From: pce-bounces@ietf.org <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of tom petch
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 7:35 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>;
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20

From: Pce < <mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org> pce-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of
Dhruv Dhody < <mailto:dd@dhruvdhody.com> dd@dhruvdhody.com>

Sent: 16 May 2023 23:15

This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20 [1].

<tp>

I had a look and decided that it is mostly beyond me - I am not up to speed
with all the 15 Normative References, in particular with RFC8821.  I would
prefer that this I-D provided a better bridge to the material in RFC8821.

I note that RFC8821 is an as yet unapproved downref which reinforces that
view.

I note too that the Abstract references this and 8735 as anchors which
Abstracts must not do.

[WAJ] Remove the anchors in the abstract.

The I-D uses the word 'draft' in many places.  These must be changed.

[WAJ] Changed the "draft" to "document" within the entire document.

The I-D has a large number of TBDnnn with no note requesting that they are
replaced;  I find these easy to miss.

[WAJ] Do you have any suggestions that can't be "easy to miss"?

p.9 2)

seems to end mid-sentence.

[WAJ] Updated

The English is not quite in several places and could be confusing.  Thus p.5
"Further only one

   of BPI, EPR, or PPA object MUST be present.  "

I can interpret in two ways although subsequent text makes one the preferred
one.

[WAJ] Change the phrase to "Further only one and one kind of BPI,EPR, or PPA
object MUST be present", is it better?

I suspect that there are many potential interactions with BGP, especially
when things are not going quite right, and that the I-D does not cover them
all.  The language used is not that of BGP (e.g. Established, speaker).  The
timing too of BGP can be quite slow, in setup and in shutdown and I wonder
how a PCC copes with that.

[WAJ] Once the PCC receives the PCInitiate message that include BPI (BGP
Peer Info) object, it will try to build the BGP session between the peers
that indicates in the BPI object. Only when it establishes the BGP session
successfully, it will report the PCE via the PCRpt message(as that described
in section
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-i
p-21#section-6.1). Then the PCE can send other instruction to the PCCs.
Actually, the procedures described in this document is asynchronous. 

As I say, largely beyond me but the English needs some attention;  using the
terminology of BGP would help.

Tom Petch

Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed
to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If
you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it
is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and
nits are most welcome.

The WG LC will end on Wednesday 31st May 2023. We will also notify the IDR
WG about this WGLC.

A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption
and help us unclog our queues :)

Thanks,

Dhruv & Julien

[1]
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/

_______________________________________________

Pce mailing list

 <mailto:Pce@ietf.org> Pce@ietf.org

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce