IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Pce] Fwd: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08: (with DISCUSS)

Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> Thu, 27 June 2013 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.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 7D61021F9CE0 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:49:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cSP4f6UQyJIH for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (r-mail2.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481B321F9C74 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 05:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail2.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D65B5D8874 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:49:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail2.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 543C05D86D0 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:49:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.44]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:49:31 +0200
Received: from [10.193.71.100] ([10.193.71.100]) by ftrdmel10.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:49:31 +0200
Message-ID: <51CC34DA.9060202@orange.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:49:30 +0200
From: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Organization: France Telecom
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
References: <20130626233210.24391.30159.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130626233210.24391.30159.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130626233210.24391.30159.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2013 12:49:31.0075 (UTC) FILETIME=[C464B130:01CE7334]
Subject: [Pce] Fwd: Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-08: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:49:37 -0000

Hi all.

I believe Benoit's following comment is interesting to the whole WG, 
beyond the reviewed I-D itself.

Julien


-------- Message original --------
De :     Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>

[...]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Joel. Section 3.3 GMPLS PCE Management is really too weak
for a requirement document.
It sounds like: "hey, let's put a MIB to satisfy the OPS ADs."
Are you really going to manage GMPLS PCE deployment with a read-only MIB
module.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-04 and RFC 4802 are
both read-only.
This section is not about management, it's just monitoring.
The WG should review https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706, and tell us how
they plan on "managing" GMPLS PCE?
Please review https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706#appendix-A, and answer
the different questions.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email