[Pce] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-10

Joe Clarke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 26 August 2019 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B1D120CEE; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joe Clarke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: pce@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <156684817455.30577.2295871305402533561@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:36:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/iWnozLJW_HiYfo-keIZNF_vurqI>
Subject: [Pce] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-10
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 19:36:15 -0000

Reviewer: Joe Clarke
Review result: Ready

I have been requested to review this draft on behalf of the OPS Directorate. 
This draft describes PCEP extensions for MPLS-TE LSP automatic bandwidth
adjustment with stateful PCE.  In general, I think the draft is well-written,
and I appreciate the addition of the operational considerations section.  It is
in that section I have a couple of comments.

In section 6.2 you say:

A Management Information Base (MIB) module for modeling PCEP is
described in [RFC7420].  However, one may prefer the mechanism for
configuration using YANG data model [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang].

However, when you look at that MIB module, there is only one read-write object.
 On top of that, the IESG has mandated that new MIB modules should not have
read-write objects.  I think your language pointing one to the YANG module
should be stronger.  Perhaps:

A MIB module for gathering operational information about PCEP is defined in
[RFC7420].  Additionally, the YANG module defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] 
provides for both configuration of PCEP as well as operational management.


In section 6.6, do you have any more concrete recommendations on a reasonable
limit of LSPs with auto-bandwidth that you have discovered from testing or
operational experience?  Providing some data here may prove useful, even if it
is somewhat anecdotal.