Hi PCE WG, authors, Some comments, continuing on this thread:
Thanks Dhruv for that explanation regarding forced on/off. I initially gave it a read through and had the same question as Aijun, unclear as to what the trade-offs were with the existing then came and read this thread. Perhaps it's worth expanding a bit more in section 6 - the existing mechanism effectively is turning it off-and-on again which may cause more path churn (compared to targeted knob removal). The document indicates the 'value portion' of the sub-tlv. I assume this applies to all 'values' when the sub-tlv contains multiple? For example, Adjustment-Threshold-Percentage Sub-TLV has both percentage and minimum-threshold. I would assume a speaker should set both of those fields to zero? Regarding section 6, the SHOULD use other techniques is a bit unclear to me the intent. Shouldn't the speaker: MUST follow RFC8733 and MUST NOT send zeros where RFC8733 does not permit it, and MAY use other RFC8733 compliant techniques? Rest of the document was fairly clear read. >> Do you believe that this document [1] is a right foundation for a PCE WG >> item? It looks to enhance existing PCEP mechanisms to not require doing a force-on-off while also managing backwards compatibility, so yes it is the right foundation for a PCE WG item. Support adoption. Thanks Andrew From: Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn> Date: Friday, October 11, 2024 at 9:17 AM To: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Cc: draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-upd...@ietf.org <draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-upd...@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] Re: 答复: Adoption Poll for draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi, Dhruv: OK, your explanations and supposed updates address my concerns. Support its adoption. Aijun Wang China Telecom On Oct 10, 2024, at 19:41, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: Hi Aijun, Thanks for reading our draft and asking questions. On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:41 PM Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn<mailto:wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>> wrote: Hi, Authors: Just want to clarify some questions first: 1) As described in section 6(Backward Compatibility) of your draft, it seems that " send a PCEP message without AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV first and then include the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV with the updated sub-TLV. " can achieve the same effect to remove the aimed sub-TLV? If so, what's advantage of this draft? If not, why? Dhruv: PCEP message without the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV indicates that the auto-bandwidth feature is disabled. Including it again with updated sub-TLV signals that the feature is enabled with the new parameters. While switching-it-off-and-switching-it-back-on may get it to work, this is not the proper method for handling modifications to the auto-bandwidth parameters. Moreover, it will also cause unnecessary path computation churn at the PCE. 2) Is there any situation that needs to remove the sub-TLV with default value? If so, it seems current mechanism can't achieve such aim. Dhruv: Yes but there is no such situation. The default values lead to the same behavior as if the sub-TLV was removed. 3) From the table 1 of your draft, the default value of " Down-Adjustment-Threshold " is " Adjustment-Threshold ", but the default value of " Adjustment-Threshold " is "None". Then which category the " Down-Adjustment-Threshold " belongs to? Have default value or not? Dhruv: You make a good point. We should add one more condition as - * if an explicit default value is set for the sub-TLV: - Restore to the explicit default values * if default value is set to another sub-TLV value: - Remove the associated attribute * if there is no default value for the sub-TLV: - Remove the associated attribute Assume we have a case of (Sample-Interval = 1000), we use the special value of all zeros, Sample-Interval = 0, this leads to first if condition i.e. Sample-Interval = 300 Now let's assume we have a case of (Adjustment-Threshold = X, Down-Adjustment-Threshold = Y). To remove Down-Adjustment-Threshold, we use the special value of all zeros - Down-Adjustment-Threshold = 0, this will lead to a second if condition(Adjustment-Threshold = X). Now assume we want to remove Adjustment-Threshold as well, we use the special value of all zeros - Adjustment-Threshold = 0, this will lead to the third if condition and Adjustment-Threshold is removed. I can make this update and add an example in the appendix. Thanks! Dhruv Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----邮件原件----- 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org<mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org> [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org<mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org>] 代表 julien.meu...@orange.com<mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com> 发送时间: 2024年10月7日 23:05 收件人: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> 主题: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update Hi all, This is an adoption poll for draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update. Do you believe that this document [1] is a right foundation for a PCE WG item? Please use the PCE mailing list to express your support or the reasons why you may be opposed to its adoption. Thank you, Julien --- [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
