Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-19

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Pce <[e-mail]> on behalf of tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: 25 November 2022 13:11

<tp2>

Some final (hopefully:-) stray thoughts on -20 after looking at RFC8231

typedef sync-state
the states seem intuitively plausible but do not seem to be described as such in RFC8231, RFC8232 etc

extended tunnel id 
is modelled as an ip-address.  RFC3209 says 'normally all zeros' but the canonical form of an address includes seperators so I am unsure if that allows for all zeros.

container initiation
leaf peer
I do not understand 
'At the PCE, the
                    reference to the PCEP peer where the LSP
                    is initiated";
'
Tom Petch

Some more thoughts on -20

RFC5520 says that reuse timer MUST NOT reuse for at  least 30min;  YANG has a default of 30min should that be a minimum?

Path Setup Type v Path Signaling Type
PCE mostly uses the former, TEAS te-types uses the latter.  Is there a difference?  Worth an explanatory note (some WG use ... which some may find confusing:-) IMHO

ASSOCIATION Type
somewhat similar; this I-D uses te-types but there is also an IANA registry.  Are they the same ?  I see IANA being updated much more quickly than a YANG module such as te-types in which case I think that the reference perhaps should be to the IANA registry.

The identifiers used for lsp-error are not quite the same as those in RFC8231.  Yes the order is the same so I can work it out but would prefer either the names to be the same or else - probably better - have the numeric values included in description of the identity

I am almost done but not quite  - I am trying to match 8231 with the YANG and have not quite made it but is is CoB on Friday afternoon:-(

Tom Petch
________________________________________
From: Pce <[e-mail]> on behalf of tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: 22 November 2022 12:19
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-19

From: Pce <[e-mail]> on behalf of tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: 17 November 2022 10:42

From: Pce <[e-mail]> on behalf of [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: 17 November 2022 09:38

As mentioned in the PCE session during IETF 115, this WGLC has ended.
Thanks Tom for your review. Comment resolution is in progress.

<tp>

-20 did appear in October.  Is that worth looking at or waiting for -21?

<tp2>

Sigh, it is big, it is complicated and one day I will get to review it all, but not just yet.

MSD. Treated here as a single value but other I-D now treat it as a list of different types as in draft-qu-mpls-mpls-msd-yang and there is an IANA registry of types as well as differentiation between node and link MSD.  Which does PCE mean?  Or should it join the crowd and have lists thereof?

-20 changes the reference for the IANA PCE flags.  This change to IANA is by draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-13 so I see that I-D as a Normative Reference.

-20 adds two new flags.  TCP-AO I see in the flags but nowhere else, no reference, no feature, no explanation.  Something needs adding and I would expect that to include Security Considerations.  Again this makes that lsr-pce I-D a Normative Reference IMO.

p.11 Tree diagram seems to be missing a  vertical bar where auth has been slotted in

"Set to true if SR-MPLS is enabled
but where is this enablement?  Not in RFC8664 AFAICT

  "PCEP Association Global Source.";
I see
     "PCEP Global Association Source.";
  In RFC8697

[IANA-IGP] reference
Title seems short of a 'P'


Tom Petch


Regards,

Julien


On 26/09/2022 15:01, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi PCE WG,
>
> This message starts a 2-week WG Last Call for
> draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-19. Please review and share any feedback
> using the PCE mailing list.
> This WGLC will end on Tuesday October 11.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Julien

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce