[Pce] Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded?

Cheng Li <c.l@huawei.com> Thu, 20 June 2024 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <c.l@huawei.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 8E7E5C18DB89 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 02:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.206
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JZ4rH6KxsZHs for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 02:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8991EC1CAF3B for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 02:46:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4W4bGS1l09z6K6Nh for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:46:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml100004.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.167]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 259D41402C6 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:46:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggpemf500009.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.50) by frapeml100004.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.167) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:46:30 +0200
Received: from dggpemf500009.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.50]) by dggpemf500009.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.50]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:46:28 +0800
From: Cheng Li <c.l@huawei.com>
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded?
Thread-Index: AdrC9mo3AtPUfqOjT9WSdNJIu0kPGQ==
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:46:27 +0000
Message-ID: <c7083e8f89e74d4fa9985842b4c0e8b5@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.203.70.229]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_c7083e8f89e74d4fa9985842b4c0e8b5huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: N5HWB3DUFD2QSYDCJJ7F2PRZ2E2CDYLM
X-Message-ID-Hash: N5HWB3DUFD2QSYDCJJ7F2PRZ2E2CDYLM
X-MailFrom: c.l@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pce.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Pce] Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded?
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/sssHhoSHvT5YqNiiQ74tjtn5urE>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pce-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pce-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pce-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Guys,

Thank you so much for your helpful review and comments of our draft draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space.
In the WG adoption, I can summarize our discussion into the below bullets, hope they are correct,

  1.  The draft is useful, and the mechanism defined in the draft is needed, we should work on it. (Thanks!)
  2.  We need to discuss the where the info should be carried in the PCEP. Open Object seems not so good ☹
  3.  TLV encoding should be updated to be more generic or let's avoid the generic description and define specific sub-TLVs as needed.

I see the reasons why we decided to carry the info in PCEP Open Object, because it is a device-wide configuration info, which should not be modified in the running state. We may face a lot of trouble of removing some IDs and then modify the range in a running network. However, we may also need to handle the negotiation between PCC and PCE?  Therefore, I am also concerning about this.

I like to hear your voice on this, which object/msg is appropriate to carry the info? I am open with other options.

Possible options could be

l  Open message

l  Use PCEP-LS encoding and make this a node attribute

l  New type of notification

l  New message/object

Once we get the conclusion of this, we can go to the bullet 3, which is much easier that bullet 2. IMHO, I will prefer to define sub-TLVs one by one, this can decouple the relations between IDs, though we may need to delete the 'generic' words.

Thoughts?
Cheng