[Pce] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt

[[e-mail]]

Hi Dhruv,

Thanks for your review and suggestions!
Please see inline with [Quan]. 
The new version is attached. Thanks!

Best Regards,

Quan


Original


From: DhruvDhody <[e-mail]>
To: 熊泉00091065;
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2024年09月11日 23:26
Subject: Re: [Pce] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt

Hi Quan, Cheng
 
For this text -> 
 
The ASSOCIATION object should also be carried in PCInitiate
message to indicate the SR policy association parameters as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp], if this path segment
identifies an SR policy.
 
Note that currently we do not have a way to signal if the path segment
identifies a CP or a SR-Policy.
(1) Is it required to be explicitly signalled?
(2) Or should you simply state that the SR policy association needs to be
included if the SR path belongs to an SR Policy?
(3) Consider using normative keywords here MUST(?)

[Quan] From my understanding, it is not required to be exlicitly indicated and it may need normative keywords MUST.
So as you suggested, this text can be revised as following.
"The ASSOCIATION object MUST also be carried in PCInitiate message to indicate the SR policy association parameters as per[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp], if this SR path belongs to an SR policy."
What is your thought?


==
 
Consider adding this text in the Introduction -> 
 
Although [RFC9050] defines the PCE as the central controller (PCECC) model,
where the PCE can instruct each hop (including the egress) on the
end-to-end path, PCE (as per [RFC5040], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281]) typically
only communicates with the ingress node. However, since the path segment
identifies the SR path on the egress node, the PCE must also communicate
with the egress node. This document outlines a mechanism to use the
existing stateful message exchange with the egress node to signal both the
SR path and the path segment.

[Quan] Thanks for your detailed texts. I think it is very great. It is very appreciated.
I suggest to add this texts to the end of the introduction section. Please see the attachment. Thanks!



==
 
Thanks!
Dhruv (as a WG participant)
 
 
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 12:17 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
 
> 
> Hi Cheng and Co-authors,
> 
> 
> I have updated the draft as discussed and the diff file is attached.
> 
> Please review and comment and I will submit it before this weekend! Thanks!
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Quan
> 
> 
> Original
> *From: *ChengLi <[e-mail]> 
> *To: *熊泉00091065;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> *Cc: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>;
> *Date: *2024年09月09日 17:42
> *Subject: **RE: [Pce] Re: I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt*
> 
> Hi Quan,
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mind to lead this update? If yes, please update the xml(You can
> download it from the datatracker) and share the diff file for authors to
> review.
> 
> 
> 
> I am crazy busy on updating 10+ drafts recently. If you can help on this,
> I will be very appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cheng
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *From:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
> *Sent:* Monday, September 9, 2024 11:23 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-10.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dhruv and Joel,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your suggestion!
> 
> 
> 
> The adding texts in my last email mainly clarify the path segment related
> parameters (e.g association) within an SR policy.  I think the PCE
> communicates with the tail instead of a notification, for example, as
> figure 3 shown, it send PCInitiate message to the egress PCC for PCE tail
> notification, for example, as figure 3 shown.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the path segment is the first function that requires
> communication with both tail and head end cause the the path segment should
> be inserted at the ingress PCC and should be recognized at the egress PCC