Re: [Pce] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-05

[Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <[e-mail]>]

+ Authors.

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:31 PM Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> -------
> Header:
> In general should we use "Stateful PCE" or "stateful PCE" ? I see in RFC
> 8231 we use "Stateful PCE"
>
> OLD:
> Ability for a stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
>
> NEW:
> Ability for a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
>
> --------
> Abstract:
> OLD:
> A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
>
> NEW:
> A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
>
> -------------
> Section 4:
> To make it more clear, it would be good to state that C and D flags are
> mutually exclusive in PCUpd message.
>
> OLD:
>
> The PCE SHOULD NOT send control request for LSP which is already delegated to the
> PCE, i.e. if the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag SHOULD NOT be set.
>
>
> NEW:
>
> The D Flag and C Flag are mutually exclusive in PCUpd message. The PCE SHOULD NOT
>
> send control request for LSP which is already delegated to thePCE, i.e. if
>
> the D flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C flag SHOULD NOT be set.
>
>
> --------------
>
> I dont see Adrian's suggestion being implemented in Section 8 in the latest draft. It would be good to have this apart from the Security Considerations.
>
>
> SUGGESTED:
>
> Not sure whether it belongs in 8.1 or 8.3 or 7...
> The Security considerations section suggests dropping delegation
> requests if the PCC is swamped. I think you need to configure the
> threshold for swamping, and to recommend that the issue be logged.
>
> IMPLEMENTED:
>
> -----------------
>
> Thanks,
> Hari
>
>