[Pce] PCE and codepoints

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

This thread is an example of why some of us have ranted *endlessly* at the PC working group to STOP PUTTING EXPLICIT VALUES FOR CODEPOINTS IN INTERNET-DRAFTS.
 
Just don't do it. Stop. Now. Take them out?
 
Why do you do it? It does not help anyone. It makes things bad.
 
I am sure I even recall the chairs asking editors to take them out. Why do we have WG drafts with explicit codepoints in them.
 
I am beyond frustrated with this :-)
 
Adrian
 
From: Pce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 04 March 2017 03:26
To: Girish Birajdar; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09.txt
 
Hi Girish, 
 
(1)    You are comparing two different things - 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09#section-8.3
is for bit inside the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV i.e. bit no 26
where as https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-08#section-9.3
is for the TLV Type i.e TLV Type = 26
We have done our best to keep the codepoints align across all stateful PCE drafts. 
But note that these are only suggestions and final authority is with IANA. 
 
(2)    The IANA early allocation [RFC7120] is the best way to make sure implementations use the right code points with no confusion. 
Chairs have done that for the stateful PCE, SR, Initiated and path setup type drafts. Those are visible at - http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml.
         As this draft goes to the RFC editor, the IANA would block the codepoints for this draft too.
 
(3)    There is a draft asking for experimental code points in PCEP - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02 ; do review and suggest if you find that useful for early experimentation of ideas. 
 
Thanks! 
Dhruv
 
From: Pce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Girish Birajdar
Sent: 04 March 2017 02:20
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09.txt
 
Dear Authors,
Suggested TLV values conflict with in other PCE drafts. I could find 2 conflicts, there may be more. Is there a way the PCE WG can manage TLV values across drafts? For compatibility between vendors and different software release from same vendor - keeping these values unchanged is critical.
8.3.  STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
    TBD11 (suggested value 26) TRIGGERED-INITIAL-SYNC    This document
    TBD12 (suggested value 28) TRIGGERED-RESYNC          This document


https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-08#section-9.4 - 
SR-PCE-CAPABILITY is 26

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-03#section-6.1
PATH-SETUP-TYPE is 28
Thanks,
Girish
 
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:08 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element of the IETF.

        Title           : Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE
        Authors         : Edward Crabbe
                          Ina Minei
                          Jan Medved
                          Robert Varga
                          Xian Zhang
                          Dhruv Dhody
        Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09.txt
        Pages           : 25
        Date            : 2017-02-28

Abstract:
   A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) has access to not only the
   information disseminated by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol
   (IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources
   for its computation.  The additional Label Switched Path (LSP) state
   information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while
   considering individual LSPs and their interactions.  This requires a
   state synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the network, PCE
   and path computation clients (PCCs), and between cooperating PCEs.
   The basic mechanism for state synchronization is part of the stateful
   PCE specification.  This document presents motivations for
   optimizations to the base state synchronization procedure and
   specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) extensions.



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

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