Hi Dhruv, Thanks for your support and comments. We will take care of them. The first point that I want to highlight is about the choice of having 4 different association types. This helps to ensure consistency in the requests and prevents two head ends to request a different disjoint type for the same group-id.
Brgds, From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 08:37 To: Jonathan Hardwick; pce@ietf.org Cc: draft-litkowski-pce-association-divers...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Poll for adoption: draft-litkowski-pce-association-diversity Hi WG, Authors, Yes/Support (but I have some concerns, that can be addressed once the document is a WG document) (1) Strictness a. The document suggest local policies to decide the computation behavior, I would prefer to have normative text for better inter-operability. I think this point was also discussed during the IETF meeting. b. Also It would be helpful if we keep the proposal aligned to existing PCEP objects and mechanism i. SVEC Flags (which are strict) [RFC5440] ii. OF codes (which allow maximizing diversity, with no strictness guarantee) [draft-dhody-pce-of-diverse] c. I would propose following encoding change i. Single disjoint association type (instead of 4) ii. Add flags in DISJOINTNESS-INFORMATION-TLV for node, link, srlg (similar to SVEC - strict) iii. Add OF-Code also in the TLV (2) I am not sure about this text in the section 3 - o Configuration: in case the PCC is performing the path computation but the PCE (without computation engine) is managing the LSP parameters, the PCE should add the disjoint-group within the PCUpdate message to communicate to the PCC the disjointness constraint. * I don't think the use of PCUpd in this way would be aligned to the Stateful PCE draft. Perhaps this needs to be discussed on its own. (3) Some text should be added to suggest how this would work along with the protection association draft [draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-path-protection]. IMHO both association group should be used together when we would like to specify the diversity requirement of the protection LSP. Some text could be added here. Based on the discussion with authors, I can provide text if required. Regards, Dhruv From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 11 January 2017 19:15 To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Cc: draft-litkowski-pce-association-divers...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-litkowski-pce-association-divers...@ietf.org>; pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-litkowski-pce-association-diversity This is start of a two week poll on making draft-litkowski-pce-association-diversity-01 a PCE working group document. https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-litkowski-pce-association-diversity-01.txt Please review the draft and send an email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your reasons. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. The poll ends on Wednesday January 25. Thanks, Jon, JP and Julien _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
