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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi again again :)

On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 6:32 PM tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>
>
Yes, it is quite intuitive, especially if you look at the figures in the
RFCs with "sync start" and "sync done" as marked!



> 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.
>
>
Added this text - "The all-zeros format is represented as 0.0.0.0 and ::."



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

Updated to ->

              description
                "If the role is PCC, this leaf refer to the PCEP
                 peer (PCE) that initiated this LSP. If the role
                 is PCE, this leaf refer to the PCEP peer (PCC)
                 where the LSP is initiated";

Thanks!
Dhruv



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