Re: [Teas] [Pce] teas

Aijun Wang <> Mon, 10 August 2020 09:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0433A136E; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 02:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o0RNV2KoVpCH; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 02:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CAA63A1426; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 02:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP2IOH5QC (unknown []) by (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 1FE97438FE; Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:07:13 +0800 (CST)
From: "Aijun Wang" <>
To: "'Loa Andersson'" <>, <>, <"review: ddraft-ietf-teas-pce-native-.all">, "'TEAS WG Chairs'" <>, "'TEAS WG'" <>, <>, "'Yemin \(Amy'" <>, =?utf-8?Q?'LucAndr=C3=A9_Burdet'?= <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 17:07:10 +0800
Message-ID: <002001d66ef5$a1cb81c0$e5628540$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01D66F38.AFF29250"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQDgzvb+NsXj7HUcCjLXaOKKHzX0FKscGLaw
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-HM-Tid: 0a73d79faf919865kuuu1fe97438fe
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] [Pce] teas
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 09:07:28 -0000

Hi, Loa:


Thanks for your review. We have updated the draft accordingly.

Detail responses are inline below.


I also includes the word responses for your reference.



Best Regards


Aijun Wang

China Telecom


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2020 2:28 PM
To:; "review: ddraft-ietf-teas-pce-native-.all"; TEAS WG Chairs <>rg>; TEAS WG <>rg>;; 'Yemin (Amy' <>om>; LucAndré Burdet <>
Subject: [Pce] teas



RtgDir review: ddraft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-09




I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 

The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​ <>


Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.


Document: draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-ip-09

Reviewer: Loa Andersson

Review Date: 2020-07-08

IETF LC End Date: date-if-known

Intended Status: copy-from-I-D - Experimental (see issues list).





I'm departing from the normal list, since if this would have been a standard tracks document there would have been serious issues.


However, the document describes a TE experiment in a native IP network.

I think is so interesting that I wouldn't object if the issues I point are not (fully) resolved. Actually I would very much like to see published and followed up by a document that reports the results from the experiment.


I have the following issues with the document.


It is a framework that gives the framework for an experiment. Its intended status is Experimental. While agree that the accompanying specification should be Experimental I think that in accordance with earlier document a framework should be Informational.

[WAJ] Actually, this draft define the architecture for traffic engineering within Native IP network(CCDR). Should we change the phrase from “framework” to “architecture”, and keep the document in “Experimental” track?

We have also discussed the possible status of this draft, at


The document describes the experiment in some detail, I would like to see more, especially evaluation criteria and bench marking. To have an overview of the test bed would be interesting.

[WAJ] We have some simulation results, as described in Experiment in real filed will have similar results because the effect of such solution depends mainly on the performance of PCE. More data can be obtained after the PCEP extension draft( been standardized. 

This is also the reason that we put this document in “Experimental” Status now. 


I would recommend that someone take a look at the document from a language point of view. When I read I find myself correcting and clarifying the English (this is probably not a good idea, since my English is probably worse than the current authors).


There are loads of not expanded abbreviations, authors should go through the document and compare to:


to decide what needs to be expanded or not.


I would also want to suggest that someone with experience of "Native IP networks". both specification and operation should look at the document. >From the early days of MPLS I remember that one motivation to create a strong tunnel technology was that the Route Reflectors no longer scaled.

[WAJ] The solution descried in this document does not decrease the scalability of RR. The forwarding plan will not pass RR.


I normally review document based on a word document, I have included the word-file, and it contains about everything form major issues to nits.








Loa Andersson                        email:  <>

Senior MPLS Expert                           <>

Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64