Hi Dhruv,
I have no expectations! But these look like good changes, thanks for the effort. Best, Adrian From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Sent: 20 October 2024 15:30 To: adr...@olddog.co.uk Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; experiment-guida...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-01 in the context of draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp Hi Adrian, Thanks for your review. On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 6:42 PM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk> > wrote: Hi, I reviewed draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-01 through the lens of draft-bonica- gendispatch-exp. Of course, that document is only a work in progress, and even if it were published as an IETF consensus RFC, it would only be guidance. But you may find this review helpful to smooth the passage of your draft through IETF and IESG review. You could address the points below just by beefing up existing text. Or you might add a new section ("Experimental Considerations"). That's up to you. draft-bonica-gendispatch-exp suggests that all Experimental protocol drafts in the IETF stream should: * Explain why the specification is presented as Experimental and not for publication on the Standards Track. >> I don't see this explained. Indeed, while the Abstract makes a statement about this being Experimental, the main text doesn't get to that point until Section 1.1. I suggest that: o In the Introduction, in the paragraph that begins "This document describes how ..." or in a new paragraph immediately after, you state that the new PCEP message format is presented as Experimental and say (briefly) why, perhaps supplying a forward reference to Section 1.1. o If you can find a very few words, you extend the statement in the Abstract to say why Experimental. Dhruv: Added this text - Abstract: This document extends the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) with Link-State and TE Information as an experimental extension to allow gathering more deployment and implementation feedback on the use of PCEP in this way. Introduction This document is designated as "experimental" to allow for the collection of more deployment and implementation information regarding the use of PCEP for learning link state and traffic engineering (TE) topology information before attempting to standardize it (see <https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/export/50034cb1-2fc8-4428-b0cb-ce6135aa6dbe/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-02.html#scope> Section 1.1). <snip> * Include metrics and observations that will be collected during the experiment. >> Information is a bit short. The main metric seems to be implementation and deployment. There is no mention of what experience should be gathered to help assess the success of the deployments. * Include criteria by which success of the experiment will be determined. >> This is also short of information. The simple statement that the results of implementation and deployment will lead to this document to be updated and refined and moved to the Standards Track. There needs, I think, to be a little bit more said about what will be looked for in those results (which refers back to the previous point). * Explain how reports of the success or failure of the experiment will be brought to the IETF, what information should be collected and reported (see Section 3), and possibly suggest a template for reporting experimental results. >> This is entirely missing. You say "the RFC authors will attempt to determine how widely this has been implemented and deployed," but you should suggest a way this information can be collected (for example, the WG wiki) and what would constitute a success (i.e., what threshold you are aiming for). I think you might also ask for a bit more information to be gathered (network technology, size of network, volume of traffic, ...). Dhruv: I created a new subsection for the above- <https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/export/492d11be-7ede-43fa-afb5-0c68bb310723/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-02.html#section-1.1.1> 1.1.1. <https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/export/492d11be-7ede-43fa-afb5-0c68bb310723/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-02.html#name-evaluation-of-the-experimen> Evaluation of the Experiment For every implementation of this feature, the information as per [ <https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/export/492d11be-7ede-43fa-afb5-0c68bb310723/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-02.html#RFC7942> RFC7942] is collected and maintained in the Working Group (WG) wiki [ <https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/export/492d11be-7ede-43fa-afb5-0c68bb310723/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-02.html#WIKI> WIKI]. For every deployment of this feature, the following information is collected and maintained in the wiki[ <https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/export/492d11be-7ede-43fa-afb5-0c68bb310723/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-ls-02.html#WIKI> WIKI]: * Network Type * Network Underlying Technology * Network Size (nodes and links) * Number of PCEP sessions with the feature enabled * Number of paths in Stateful PCE * The main reason for using this feature via PCEP over others * Any challenges (deployment, management, scalability...) The information can also be shared directly with the WG chairs who can anonymise the deployment information if needed. The experiment will end three years after the RFC is published. At that point, the WG will determine how widely this has been implemented and deployed. The WG will evaluate the success of this feature by comparing its applicability in various deployments in comparison to existing mechanisms. Key considerations include whether the feature adversely affects the performance of the PCE and if it is scalable. The Working Group will also monitor for any issues related to the implementation, deployment, and management of the feature. When the results of implementation and deployment are available, this document (or part thereof) will be updated and refined, and then it could be moved from Experimental to Standards Track. Let me know if this meets your expectations. Feel free to suggest edits. Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
