[Teas] Comments about draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation

Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 09:56 UTC

Return-Path: <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531DE3A14D2; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 01:56:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tjQDLozM2-pz; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 01:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 05EFD3A14D3; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 01:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id E38A573B4804FF2E3D35; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:56:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml735-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.86) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:56:06 +0000
Received: from lhreml735-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.86) by lhreml735-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:56:06 +0000
Received: from DGGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.39) by lhreml735-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:56:05 +0000
Received: from DGGEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.89]) by DGGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::b177:a243:7a69:5ab8%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:55:59 +0800
From: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation@ietf.org>
CC: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments about draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation
Thread-Index: AdXuF+hyFD0FlG+2Tqi+KCgsK/fEGA==
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:55:59 +0000
Message-ID: <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43F7B4F37@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.24.178.77]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43F7B4F37dggeml511mbxchi_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/7fUXlSQMGTc5K7KyIVDlfUKlY_U>
Subject: [Teas] Comments about draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 09:56:13 -0000

Hi, Authors, WG,

We have been reviewing the document (-08), and would like to share with you about the following comments:

1.       The concept of path computation data model and the PCE should be orthogonal, i.e., we should avoid misleading that the path computation data model must be achieved via PCEP, especially among controllers; please help clarify if this understanding is correct;

2.       Section 3.3 mentions the 'stateless' and 'stateful' path computation respectively, but the term is slightly confusing because it reminds people to use stateful/stateless PCEP to do the path computation work, which is actually just a sub-case in the path computation model. I think the motivation to have 'stateful/stateless' here is 'to plan the network with or without actually occupying any resources', so probably some alternative terminologies can be used. I don't have perfect term in my mind, but something like 'compute-reserve' and 'compute-only' may be helpful;

3.       Section 3.2 provides really detailed path computation policies, I know we have hard experience to achieve here. The content is clear but seems an overkill. Shall we leave some path computation principles here, and move the details as an example to some appendix?

Since there is also github about this work, the issues were listed as https://github.com/rvilalta/ietf-te-path-computation/issues/68 for your information as well. Thank you.

Haomian Zheng
PhD,
Principle Standard Delegate for Transport & Access Software,
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Tel : +86 13066975206
Email : zhenghaomian@huawei.com
[cid:image001.png@01D55296.0E369D90]

This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!