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

Jonathan Hardwick <> Sat, 22 June 2019 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F02120048; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 01:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8AGmYWgbWpjw; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3E22120026; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 01:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=RW4Cuq06LM2r/rE/1UE8dQftHrSWOR0IzjiNhvN4FaQ=; b=ijmpZMJz5jkGlOITVKIhu9oNZ4iO4zN/3niS2Iw9DrlFoPQo3CIt0+2r61YU6nGB+uRa51l76wejHnJTRqUuQ860Z9etVYQa094fqZgwZMO8OHCFAUBLVzaCw6a7JSF0EYr5zxeLbupi+/x4zINNEMd0reMPreNDFNm5yc2JNvk=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1987.13; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:49:26 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::6dbb:857c:3e73:22d8]) by ([fe80::6dbb:857c:3e73:22d8%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1987.014; Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:49:26 +0000
From: Jonathan Hardwick <>
To: Rakesh Gandhi <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
Thread-Index: AdUlulUnDOw5huA4S2KG8QMmLIE0EACnJp6AACAZpvA=
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:49:26 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8155209f-4939-42ec-ee1e-08d6f6ee8842
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR02MB4664;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR02MB4664:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0076F48C8A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(366004)(396003)(136003)(376002)(39860400002)(54094003)(189003)(199004)(229853002)(26005)(8936002)(486006)(76116006)(476003)(446003)(66446008)(11346002)(316002)(66946007)(66066001)(6436002)(66574012)(64756008)(66476007)(71200400001)(76176011)(66556008)(236005)(53546011)(68736007)(6916009)(6506007)(9686003)(54896002)(6306002)(73956011)(606006)(790700001)(52536014)(3846002)(102836004)(25786009)(99286004)(7736002)(6246003)(72206003)(8676002)(256004)(478600001)(5660300002)(71190400001)(6116002)(966005)(14454004)(86362001)(54906003)(81156014)(53936002)(2906002)(33656002)(81166006)(4326008)(74316002)(55016002)(14444005)(186003)(7696005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR02MB4664;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: F+KwATx5d9YRqprI3/S6iBRliSi4MHDuRQShmPKJb4AyV2e0BoBbu1i6HIajYA9eZI07u2oWL2tHenlUNSKHt++QjmVIgTcvChM38b2oS4EXLTaCc8cVO/Lvk3yi6nhurGTMKJdOWF60sXcu+tomLK0kH1rAkUpEP92cRimgh6tzsw9Vu1HrCnIBaLSM54WLmnKt+GmbmY7j8ekGc9QZxnxlM6r5rhQehGWWoP707+edqlLfEzgbvf87ITYC31XeFkPT6T7qKY2dv71w0MP0EgqAcbaZZNjUvR0jV3qTv4gpdkqGhdkKJ7W04arti3XoSXauEAR+HPhqxPSSCsSqnR7tfPUYRwYR5Ne6KBc70meMjDa4ej7MqMmvidEqlbLSXsf8uyslP96IY1z5B/uXm801O8nLKKVQ0TvBXM+ykxI=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR02MB4870A3D0180C55049B5C4DEF84E60BYAPR02MB4870namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8155209f-4939-42ec-ee1e-08d6f6ee8842
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Jun 2019 08:49:26.5612 (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-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR02MB4664
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [Pce] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 08:49:34 -0000

Thanks Rakesh, sounds good to me.

From: Rakesh Gandhi <>
Sent: 21 June 2019 18:30
To: Jonathan Hardwick <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09

NOTE: Message is from an external sender
Hi Jon,

Thank you for the review comments. Please see inline with <RG>...

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:53 AM Jonathan Hardwick <<>> wrote:
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.


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

Section 3 is somewhat redundant IMO.

<RG> We can keep it given the Figure showing the extensions unless there is a preference to remove it.

4.1 you should ideally provide a reference for how to do MBB signalling.

<RG> Added [RFC3209].

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.

<RG> Added.

5.1 Not a big deal, but I wonder if there is any practical reason to differentiate the final two bullets.

<RG> There is a precedence for the second bullet error message in [RFC 8231] (e.g. error-value 2). The first bullet error message just comes from the existing behaviour without this extension.

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.

<RG> Agree. Removed the sentence.

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.

<RG> Updated the text.

5: “Extensions to the PCEP” would sound better as “PCEP Extensions”

<RG> Fixed.

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.

<RG> Updated.


Pce mailing list<>