Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the BSID draft

[Siva Sivabalan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,

I also agree with Mike. Let's not make BSID ID dependent on PCECC
capability.

Thanks,
Siva

On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:58 AM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dhruv,
>
> My concern is about a PCC that DOES support PCE assigned BSID, but that
> DOES NOT support PCECC. Your latest diff still says that PCECC capability
> is needed for this PCC to be able to make use of PCE assigned BSID.
>
> IMHO it should not be necessary to bring in support for PCECC, which is
> quite a large extension, just to allow a PCE to send down a BSID label to
> the PCC. PCE may have some other mechanism to figure out whether a BSID
> label is allocated or not.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 11:38 AM
> To: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Siva Sivabalan <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; pce-chairs <[e-mail]
> >
> Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the BSID
> draft
>
> Hi Siva, Mike,
>
> I have made an update to add more clarity in section 7.
>
> Commit:
> https://github.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/commit/5c7e4625e8491fdece9007bec076a654bbeeaf93
> Diff:
> https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-05&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt
>
> Just to clarify, this is not a new requirement, all that is being done is
> moving the text from the PCECC I-D (which was already in post-WGLC) to the
> BSID I-D. It is also marked that this feature is optional and used only in
> the case the implementation also supports PCECC operations and no change is
> made to any existing operations that could lead to any backward
> compatibility issues.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv (as a WG member)
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:43 PM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I’m also concerned about having PCECC as a requirement for anything in
> that draft. It would break backward compatibility.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mike.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Pce <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Siva Sivabalan
> > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 7:13 PM
> > To: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > pce-chairs <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the
> > BSID draft
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Dhruv and all:
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 7 states:
> >
> > Section 4 includes a case where a specified value for the binding
> label/SID is requested to be allocated by the PCC.
> >
> >
> >
> > Section 4 (of v5) states:
> >
> > If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may
> > do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH-
> >
> > BINDING TLV.
> >
> >
> >
> > Could we please add a bit more clarity to the motivation for the
> proposed change ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, we may want to indicate that how a PCE figures out the available
> labels on a PCC, etc, is outside the scope of this ID.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Siva
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 8:41 AM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi WG, Authors,
> >
> > As part of the handling of RTGDIR comments [1] for the PCECC I-D [2],
> > it was discovered that it is a better idea to handle the Binding SID
> > allocation by the PCE in the BSID I-D [3]. Julien and I agree.
> >
> > Also, it makes sense to move the new P-flag in the LSP object here
> > (from path segment WG I-D [4]).
> >
> > Cheng and I have this proposed update -
> >
> > Diff:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-
> > binding-label-sid-05&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody
> > /ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt
> >
> > Please let us know if anyone has any concerns with this approach. This
> > draft is in our WG LC Queue [5].
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Dhruv/Cheng
> >
> > [1]
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/4n6FpBoDHjnGppKH4bcVotUu
> > _hE/ [2]
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce
> > -controller/ [3]
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid/
> > [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment/
> > [5] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/wiki/WikiStart#WGLastCallQueue
>