Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth**
Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 16 September 2019 11:21 UTC
Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC44E120834; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kj9C2VUcS2j9; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd42.google.com (mail-io1-xd42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D77F120019; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd42.google.com with SMTP id q10so5865731iop.2; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YmKnli5cssOLP4ZkSPw81CwzMxwNMxzWbksAtfFsiEA=; b=UA5BP932yxFlxDENKpFnbHbcN45+JueNrX+RdyKxKYR8/19xw6Pyct8XRS8Z8578Wv Jr58oOou/S3BxJQXT2rSsbQdy+GNajrrlY3H2h/ZsivVd5H/RtOw9H6Hop1V/B1zqJkw f6HhGY6noCQG53ihVGvAfuwLMZoiIP1uGNWgwgXw2fLgmHmNgXiGWvITFFe2JXiGvYyr MBZt26GOiDC/Fh9tqnFLq63ERwmZQhts8ucmVI4jv9qC+EENdPRhjdEWyF5g2PNnk3rz EVncjMdSZCONVU8mkQQgh+cokPt0SbkM6q8LhYw3NmusSd8sTOIy0lBUuv806x1Utmvo tT6Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YmKnli5cssOLP4ZkSPw81CwzMxwNMxzWbksAtfFsiEA=; b=YFakiCwwmbkwAU9xuKE2HlS0fN2qlt6KnOhbP3eUTEtTSxdyPOgQsep3SS0y/BtSw4 AxMbY0+iICx4quMH/8GqkdyeQrff+itmlqrImmr92Zrzy4ZQdbuGMeIiGz/Js3Rsa9fU M1fMxNd3D2M2P4No+kumhOelVkHTwsh4c6LE3nIGM/zOdl05GvjrS+CadvRw1cjpLD9E wjV78TvfurO2TnTDxXA9erihU1rUcOzdk60lRVRoCjvNLVkRAkAmFGvUjXnV+eW0ydGs HTwT3EuPb2iSi2dgem9Z+LLzoj5EiLP4qf2Q92qHF06WMJypjYKfa11c8e5uPngl3Fd6 fwfw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUCiEEw5Pkx2yxUzjJkdF3gf7PzM13BjyALsM5OCNGuX+8LJ/eb kWoHQcN3bhknYXvULN5Ssjh8f7YBe4fSCLi7AGbDMQGu
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxN0vVu8wp35vxtagaQ6t23Q9KvV0dUSRQxMiV0BIfCnR5mvv2lRj+fHwGL5cgPiCtFtkWL7iIlalBFdEFsKDY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:3:: with SMTP id z3mr6662242jao.54.1568632883184; Mon, 16 Sep 2019 04:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAB75xn5CPpoo=SWGfiDS+jQQ0pr1Z7HeHKjx9prGzb6tH9YxbQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn5CPpoo=SWGfiDS+jQQ0pr1Z7HeHKjx9prGzb6tH9YxbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 16:50:46 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn6jiNGePOAat_ET-JsPsvuouo8d651GrdjswPjC7OYPWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, pce@ietf.org
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, Farrel Adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/izl_c-zDCX_0fKrPIxCnPVRMydI>
Subject: Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth**
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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, 16 Sep 2019 11:21:27 -0000
Hi again! On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:48 PM Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Barry, WG, > > I saw the DISCUSS [1] in the datatracker but for some reason the email > never landed in my inbox or the list [2]. I am manually posting it > here - > > ==== > > Discuss (2019-09-16) > > Thanks for another clear document. There are some "SHOULD" key words > in one section that I would like to discuss, and that I think we ought > to be able to resolve without much difficulty: > > — Section 5.7 — > > There are various “SHOULD”s in this section, and I have the same > comment about all of them: BCP 14 says, about “SHOULD”, that “there > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a > particular item, but the full implications must be understood and > carefully weighed before choosing a different course.” I see no > guidance here to help the reader understand what such circumstances > and implications are, so I can’t see how an implementer can evaluate > the situation. Can you provide any help here? > > ==== > I checked the base RFC for PCEP - RFC 5440 where notifications are first defined. They do not use MUST for sending notification in the PCE overload case [1]. Leaving that aside, in case of auto-bandwidth feature, this notification is important for scaling. I am inclined to change it to MUST as suggested. Co-authors, WG, please speak up if you disagree!! I have incorporated all other comments in the working copy. Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-11&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-12.txt Thanks! Dhruv [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.14 > Comment (2019-09-16) > > Again, these are purely editorial comments, which need no detailed > response; please just consider them. > > — Section 1 — > > Over time, based on the varying traffic pattern, an LSP established > with a certain bandwidth may require to adjust the bandwidth reserved > in the network dynamically. > > “may require adjustment of the bandwidth” > > This is similar to > the Passive stateful PCE model, while the Passive stateful PCE uses > path request/reply mechanism, the Active stateful PCE uses > report/update mechanism. > > NEW > This is similar to > the Passive stateful PCE model: while the Passive stateful PCE uses > a path request/reply mechanism, the Active stateful PCE uses a > report/update mechanism. > END > > This document defines the PCEP extensions needed to support Auto- > Bandwidth feature in a Active stateful PCE model > > NEW > This document defines the PCEP extensions needed to support an Auto- > Bandwidth feature in an Active stateful PCE model > END > > — Section 2.3 — > > This value indicates how many times > consecutively, the percentage or absolute difference > > Add a comma after “times”. > > — Section 3 — > > The PCEP speaker supporting this document must have a mechanism > > “A PCEP speaker”. > > o It is required to identify and inform the PCC, which LSPs are > enabled with Auto-Bandwidth feature. Not all LSPs in some > deployments would like their bandwidth to be dependent on the > real-time bandwidth usage but be constant as set by the operator. > > NEW > o It is necessary to identify and inform the PCC which LSPs have > the Auto-Bandwidth feature enabled. In some deployments, not > all LSPs would like their bandwidth to be dependent on the > real-time bandwidth usage, but would rather be constant as set > by the operator. > END > > — Section 4.1 — > > The initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including > zero), in practice, it can be operator expected value based on design > and planning. > > NEW > The initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including > zero). In practice, it can be set to an expected value based on design > and planning. > END > > — Section 4.2 — > > When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate > is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval (which can be > configured by an operator and the default value as 5 minutes) by the > PCC, when the PCC is the head-end node of the LSP. The traffic rate > samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval period (in the > Up or Down direction) (which can be configured by an operator and the > default value as 24 hours). > > NEW > When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate > is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval by the PCC, when the > PCC is the head-end node of the LSP. The sample interval can be > configured by an operator, with a default value of 5 minutes. > > The traffic rate samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval > period (in the Up or Down direction). The period can be configured by > an operator, with a default value of 24 hours. > END > > The PCC, in-charge of calculating the > bandwidth to be adjusted, can decide to adjust the bandwidth > > Remove both commas. > > Only if the difference between the > current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw) and the current bandwidth > reservation is greater than or equal to the Adjustment-Threshold > (percentage or absolute value) (which can be configured by an > operator and the default as 5 percentage), the LSP bandwidth is > adjusted (upsized) to the current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw). > > I’m sorry: I can’t made any sense out of this text and, thus, can’t > suggest a fix. Please try rephrasing this. When you do, please make > it more than one sentence, and please avoid consecutive parenthesized > phrases, which are awkward. > > However, longer > adjustment-interval can result in an undesirable effect > > “a longer” > > To avoid this, the > Auto-Bandwidth feature may pre-maturely expire the adjustment- > interval and adjust the LSP bandwidth > > “prematurely”, with no hyphen. > “adjustment interval”, with no hyphen. > > — Section 5.1 — > > o The PCEP speaker that does not recognize the extensions defined in > > “A PCEP speaker” > > o If the PCEP speaker that supports the extensions defined in this > > “If a PCEP speaker supports” > > — Section 5.2 — > > Future specification can define additional sub-TLVs. > > “specifications” > > If sub-TLVs are not present, the > default values as specified in this document are used or otherwise > based on the local policy are assumed. > > I can’t make sense of that sentence; please re-phrase it. > > — Section 5.2.3.2 — > > o Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be > ignored on receipt. > > Why is this “SHOULD”, when other reserved values have been “MUST”? > > (Same comment in 5.2.3.4, 5.2.5.1, 5.2.5.2, 5.2.5.3, and 5.2.5.4.) > > ==== > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth/ballot/ > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/
- [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-pce-s… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-p… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-p… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-p… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-p… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-p… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-p… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] **Barry Leiba's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-p… Barry Leiba