[RTG-DIR] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09

Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com> Tue, 18 June 2019 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1B812011B; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 02:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=metaswitch.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gn8OVRulHJJp; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 02:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr780128.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.78.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2577120071; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 02:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=metaswitch.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=82huXVeBNBMx1MCzZjvLMfpRi/LAm5BLsF435b3DOAY=; b=sctjGvFUO43YASNk2QSWS4e74/eqGMtRuzTDI+KyOm5QTtsCefKs4bbib1Za2Am4ksWhOj463OrhHxxCANWIsNaEPjZkxvDrgwQ6pK982zVidRtDYmZvzEq+TbiTc74OfgqsLEM/vM+jR/ht0BCKcmAKD9H9a9sYxd9KKNi8O9A=
Received: from BL0PR02MB4868.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (52.132.14.77) by BL0SPR01MB0011.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (52.132.26.95) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1987.13; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:52:54 +0000
Received: from BL0PR02MB4868.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3544:232d:1de4:44f4]) by BL0PR02MB4868.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3544:232d:1de4:44f4%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1987.014; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:52:54 +0000
From: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>
To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
Thread-Index: AdUlulUnDOw5huA4S2KG8QMmLIE0EA==
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:52:54 +0000
Message-ID: <BL0PR02MB48683C539DEB5050782AAEA484EA0@BL0PR02MB4868.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com;
x-originating-ip: [192.91.191.162]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d658ecaf-2123-47e0-db79-08d6f3d2bc00
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BL0SPR01MB0011;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BL0SPR01MB0011:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BL0SPR01MB0011EF868880653F698FC70084EA0@BL0SPR01MB0011.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 007271867D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(376002)(366004)(136003)(39850400004)(346002)(54094003)(189003)(199004)(66446008)(7736002)(5660300002)(66556008)(486006)(7696005)(73956011)(64756008)(8936002)(71200400001)(478600001)(33656002)(55016002)(102836004)(81166006)(66946007)(316002)(14454004)(6506007)(71190400001)(66476007)(76116006)(476003)(72206003)(2351001)(8676002)(99286004)(54906003)(81156014)(74316002)(6916009)(86362001)(66066001)(3846002)(450100002)(66574012)(2501003)(6116002)(25786009)(790700001)(4326008)(26005)(5640700003)(68736007)(53936002)(6436002)(14444005)(256004)(9686003)(6306002)(54896002)(2906002)(186003)(52536014); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL0SPR01MB0011; H:BL0PR02MB4868.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: metaswitch.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Chavl8ReQ3aMtB8Hfs0HrNtbe41y/3l2uZkwSPy2c3AW1pYw/jIXW3m48xOEaYBTds2DhoGtQzqk1kLKHe5g/seLjQQrLld5rul2kWuqg9DC0NjPdMvccq0yYePEkKkkCRCPog+VmpSxZOq2mg4dcL9ygqGKIz7q3HtCrePKnkrX2krZKwDXmtSZ+Dv3a5sA5Ar1qKUAthfCXF5Uk3kaoig+0/JRJVAYTlBXEMR3QV43PyV7cSPpVxmse3g41PYOokS3qSPvcva9O+KNfL/sdOWtJRjqTiJsKVCnHgM8Nk107YXFAAHquK56p+XvBqopMXMLeXOKPnAVoY5nGwlPNucr2/tsvzmffJ2UlcXuNQJjf3Pa5sd2TrXq5H7DxG59viGGn431ex5u2KJMnHtlz7lqkw/fzSwwTxLw+Wrwi10=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BL0PR02MB48683C539DEB5050782AAEA484EA0BL0PR02MB4868namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: metaswitch.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d658ecaf-2123-47e0-db79-08d6f3d2bc00
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Jun 2019 09:52:54.0209 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 9d9e56eb-f613-4ddb-b27b-bfcdf14b2cdb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: jeh@ad.datcon.co.uk
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL0SPR01MB0011
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Z0r3LJUP1VGgjw0sAUA6fPRDJME>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:53:02 -0000

Hi there

I have reviewed this draft for the routing directorate as part of preparing it for IETF last call and IESG review.

I was familiar with this document from the time that I chaired the PCE working group, but this was the first time I read it all the way through and paid attention to all details.  I found it easy to read and understand.  I think it is basically ready to go with a few small clarifications and nits, below.

Cheers
Jon

Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
Reviewer: Jon Hardwick
Review Date: 18 June 2019
IETF LC End Date: LC not started yet
Intended Status: Standards Track

Comments
Section 3 is somewhat redundant IMO.
4.1 you should ideally provide a reference for how to do MBB signalling.
4.3 "Similarly, if a PCC gets overwhelmed due to signaling churn, it can notify the PCE to temporarily suspend new LSP setup requests."  I think this is covered by 5.7 as well as the PCE case, but you only refer to 5.7 for the latter. Please point to 5.7 for both cases.
5.1 Not a big deal, but I wonder if there is any practical reason to differentiate the final two bullets.
5.6 Why are AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES required (MUST) in the LSPA object of a PCRpt?  If the LSP is PCE-initiated, then the PCE already knows what attributes were specified.  If the LSP is PCC-Initiated, then the attributes are the PCC's business - the PCE can't change them (per 5.5) and I don't think the PCE even needs to know what they are.
7.2 Misuses RFC 2119 language to request an action from a working group.  In other documents (when there is not already a draft in progress to do it) we have reworded this as "the YANG / MIB could be updated" etc.

Nits
5: "Extensions to the PCEP" would sound better as "PCEP Extensions"
7: In RFC 6123 it says "The Manageability Considerations section SHOULD be placed immediately before the Security Considerations section in any Internet-Draft." - but here, it comes after.