Re: [Pce] Feedback on draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors

Zhenghaomian <> Fri, 07 May 2021 06:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918453A0474; Thu, 6 May 2021 23:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zvZCvsE0zSpX; Thu, 6 May 2021 23:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E23A23A045E; Thu, 6 May 2021 23:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Fc0MS0x4Fz68BWd; Fri, 7 May 2021 14:06:44 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 7 May 2021 08:17:46 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 7 May 2021 14:17:44 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Fri, 7 May 2021 14:17:44 +0800
From: Zhenghaomian <>
To: Dhruv Dhody <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: Feedback on draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors
Thread-Index: AddCbxhcxg6nQ9aVTRKXFEIlHd1VIw==
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 06:17:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4db134e8ccbb493fb1d779b3591dddb2huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Feedback on draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 06:18:00 -0000

Hi, WG,

I have been working on this document for a few iterations. Generally speaking I think this is not a typical PCEP work, because it is not focusing providing path computation characteristics, but some communication mechanisms among PCEs. It won’t be applicable for single PCE scenario. The TLVs extended in this document, propagation TLV and criticality TLV, are used to describe the rule for a single PCE when handling the error.

My personal opinion is, this work will be useful when multiple PCEs (especially from different vendors) need to negotiate how to do the error handling, for example in inter-layer or H-PCE cases. With more and more PCE developed and deployed in the network, the mechanism defined in this document will eventually be needed, but it may take some time.

Thank you.

Best wishes,
Haomian (editor)

发件人: Dhruv Dhody []
发送时间: 2021年5月4日 1:39
主题: Feedback on draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors

Hi WG,

The WG I-D draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors enhances the error and notification handling in PCEP. It is one of the older I-Ds that has changed editorship multiple times.

We do not see the enhanced mechanism specified in this I-D being utilized by any other document yet. We would like to understand if there is still interest in publishing this as an RFC. Could you also state your reasoning? Please provide your feedback by Monday, 17th May.

PCE Chairs