Re: [Pce] 答复: Working Group last call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-06

<daniel@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 10 June 2019 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dk@danielking.net>
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 B9BD7120181 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=danielking-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 0VWMY3r21lRi for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (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 29E1C120180 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id n4so8951092wrs.3 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=danielking-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=zio4PKhRHixb0Qq9wx+tDjNntv71s+1+miAEOkjSJxw=; b=Tik7MoydSGhU8SZ4pBbLSrezDnJ2WTAK56K3DeYnAE3LfCb6JHGHzt5fv1l7acPXGi M2qBku5rJxLUfjmpRjoakZ9GlW84GKm7L4RR4l76mdmOJvgtLRNxl7zUs1fPJcDVuPvS qLFtIHFcBAM6upVrNuve803tqHq2b16C7KAeByfXhTTo+blz51SmhDk4dWY90Yq4vxjv LlsGeZ70JEIFSIYr4rsQ/EHfVF9YcsUmOzOGH5flqp4ng3FvXYuXNrjCGFnTIg5FZ8PX zFGoyVvEVBb3Wo0GZ2uOTd5gVv+SmDMOD4WzEcGYuQ0WjouinedajNHf4ywtN3Ah+0q+ MRPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=zio4PKhRHixb0Qq9wx+tDjNntv71s+1+miAEOkjSJxw=; b=Ir6l/px5NwytNf95YaSTo0seCqoonqHZixv4CYWe8DzoN/yqGnNTwufBLXcPPP2UF7 SeIeCn+X1jRJlZNQiS1jtmxIOg3SZRnUMIhaGY+iB1zow1KbtLuICZaP9WB7Vhnr5t2X B9jRGQ9t8XifNp0oBalNA/d/sekWrgPVzSA2XMTTUSCSan878OC3q6jVJ73eBvlWoMfu JBmwiqe3INWwSqiWLnCLh7YLb63GzbqkOpKH3aYRmZeTZX52LrW3Rhe0gf9wSKgl+M4i zWdSh8c+j2cu8kRzQ1nTjt8M2VuSgpDiq12ZfwGFh3AFE/K/yZyOipl+V+r+WYKFS6XS 3VYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU5PzL3OC4cwEYys9f/0gHMDhyGA8wA8c6/r+sunxSkszKHhUNw pHK/+Y+LvVSGGwht7l/qZ0CextQ3DZZglQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwxGclDMhV42biw6kCSzCxxZbJk7lvDPXUcvaCSLfglQ+nOyTKhmyXiQzUjlngEjqAzmkAsuw==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4044:: with SMTP id w4mr19533886wrp.171.1560168665053; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CIPHER (host86-157-191-178.range86-157.btcentralplus.com. [86.157.191.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o14sm9347881wrp.77.2019.06.10.05.11.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Jun 2019 05:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Daniel King <dk@danielking.net>
X-Google-Original-Sender: "Daniel King" <dk@danielking.net>
From: daniel@olddog.co.uk
To: "'Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)'" <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
Cc: pce@ietf.org
References: <02a601d4d9e8$4def3770$e9cda650$@olddog.co.uk> <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43B7AFE60@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43B7AFE60@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 13:11:02 +0100
Message-ID: <00d201d51f85$92a86ac0$b7f94040$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGgU2j2MB/zQHkMewo2mPRLdGQ0qQLOEwR5pufzfuA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/oovYJl5RcFF8JX06S3FmmvorH4M>
Subject: Re: [Pce] 答复: Working Group last call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-06
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, 10 Jun 2019 12:11:10 -0000

Hi Haomian, 

Thank you again for the review and suggestions. We believe we have addressed your comments. 

BR, Dan. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)
Sent: 01 April 2019 08:39
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] 答复: Working Group last call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-06

Hi, WG, 

I have read this document and believe this work is very useful. Stateful H-PCE will enable a more efficient way to do the computation with a group of PCEs. The document is in a good shape as well. 

I support to move forward on this document, some minor comments are provided to be fixed after the LC: 
- The page number in ToC is not consistent, maybe an update on word would be needed; 
- PCEP stateful extension in RFC8231, and PCEP initiation extension in RFC8281, are usually considered as two separate works. Given the fact we have merged the gmpls extension with two features, it is reasonable to have these two features in the h-pce work as well. I noticed there is corresponding descriptions in section 3.3, and I think it would be useful if one sentence can be summarized in the abstract. 

OLD: 
   A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on
   the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path
   (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path
   computation requests. This information may then be considered when
   computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated
   and dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs).
NEW:
   A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on
   the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path
   (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path
   computation requests. This information may then be considered when
   computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated
   and dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs). 
   Initialize the result of path computation from PCE is also helpful for 
   the PCC to gracefully establish the computed LSP. 

- As mentioned in IETF 104 PCE WG session (draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors), error handling issues need to be mentioned for inter-pce works, and this work exactly fits into the scope. It is suggested to add one small section about this. How about the following? 

7.7.  Error Handling between PCEs
Error types specified in PCEP should be properly propagate between parent and child PCEs. The propagation, notification and criticality level defined in [I-D. ietf-pce-enhanced-errors] are recommended. 

- The idnits report an unused reference 'pcep-yang', probably because of the line in section 7.2 for citation is not properly broken in the middle. Editing will be helpful to fix it. 

We are looking forward to see the improvement after the WG LC, thank you. 

Best wishes,
Haomian

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Adrian Farrel
发送时间: 2019年3月14日 6:01
收件人: pce@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Working Group last call on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-06

Hi working group,

This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-06.

I would like to hear messages of support or concern about this draft.

If you support its progression towards publication as an RFC, please let us know that you have read the latest revision, and explain why you think the work is important. Indications of implementation would also be welcome - although this document is informational, I believe some people may have built stateful hierarchical PCEs for experimentation or deployment.

If you are opposed to the progression or have concerns please articulate them.

As always, review comments and nits are most welcome.

Because of the effort that is going in to preparing for IETF-104 and because of the time spent away, this last call will run for three weeks and end on April 4th.

Thanks,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce