Hi Mahesh, On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 8:20 PM Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "Abstract", paragraph 0 > > Abstract > > The shepherd's write-up was done in 2022. Has there been no change in the > document since then that would require an update to the writeup? > > Dhruv: The datatracker says that the shepherd write up was "Last changed 2024-04-16". I am guessing you are looking at "*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*" in the writeup itself, which is the date for the template - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/shepherdwriteup-template/individual > Section 1, paragraph 3 > > [RFC5440] defined the P flag (Processing-Rule) in the Common Object > > Header to allow a PCC to specify in a Path Computation Request > > (PCReq) message (sent to a PCE) whether the object must be taken into > > account by the PCE during path computation or is optional. The I > > flag (Ignore) is used by the PCE in a Path Computation Reply (PCRep) > > message to indicate to a PCC whether or not an optional object was > > considered by the PCE during path computation. Stateful PCE > > [RFC8231] specified that the P and I flags of the PCEP objects > > defined in [RFC8231] is to be set to zero on transmission and ignored > > on receipt, since they are exclusively related to the path > > computation requests. The behaviour for P and I flag in other > > messages defined in [RFC5440] and other extension was not specified. > > This document specifies how the P and I flag could be used in the > > stateful PCE model to identify optional objects in the Path > > Computation State Report (PCRpt) [RFC8231], the Path Computation > > Update Request (PCUpd) [RFC8231], and the LSP Initiate Request > > (PCInitiate) [RFC8281] message. > > I would have imagined that this would be a good place to introduce the fact > that the document is trying to define a new flag (R) in this document. > > Dhruv: I was okay with the current text as the R flag is doing more of a support role whereas P and I flag usage is the star. But I will let authors take a call on this. > Section 3.1, paragraph 3 > > The R flag MUST be set by both PCC and PCE to indicate support for > > the handling of the P and I flag in the PCEP common object header to > > allow relaxing some constraints by marking objects as 'optional to > > process'. If the PCEP speaker did not set the R flag but receives > > PCEP objects with P or I bit set, it MUST behave as per the > > processing rule in [RFC8231]. Note that while [RFC8231] stated that > > P and I flags of the PCEP objects defined in [RFC8231] are set to 0 > > on transmission and ignored on receipt, it did not say anything about > > already existing PCEP objects and thus the behaviour remained > > undefined. To safely use this feature, both peers need to set the R > > flag. > > It is unclear from this paragraph what it means when it states that "it > did not > say anything about already existing PCEP objects". Already existing PCEP > objects that have the P and I flags set to 1?? It appears that the > behavior of > when it is set to 0 is known, so it would seem that we are talking about > when > the value is not set to 0. Can this be made clear? > > Dhruv: This is the relevant text from RFC 8231 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8231#section-7 > > The P and I flags of the PCEP > objects defined in the current document MUST be set to 0 on > transmission and SHOULD be ignored on receipt since they are > exclusively related to path computation requests. where it says "objects defined in the current document". To make it clear, I propose the following change - OLD: Note that while [RFC8231] stated that P and I flags of the PCEP objects defined in [RFC8231] are set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt, it did not say anything about already existing PCEP objects and thus the behaviour remained undefined. NEW: [RFC8231] stated that P and I flags of the PCEP objects defined in [RFC8231] are set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt. It failed to mention the behaviour of objects defined outside of [RFC8231] leading to ambiguity. END Section 7, paragraph 0 > > 7. Manageability Considerations > > It is great to see that this document has a separate manageability > consideration section called out. > > Section 7.2, paragraph 0 > > An implementation supporting this document SHOULD allow the operator > > to view the capability defined in this document. To serve this > > purpose, the PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] could be > > extended in the future. > > Is this captured in the charter as a milestone, or in a draft that is being > considered by the WG? > > Dhruv: When the WG will embark on an update to the PCEP YANG, we will be going through the manageability consideration of all our RFCs to make sure we meet the requirements set aside. Since all PCEP RFCs have this section, this is how we plan to track this. Thanks! Dhruv (as a document shepherd) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > NIT > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may > choose to > address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by > automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so > there > will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what > you > did with these suggestions. > > Section 3.3.2, paragraph 1 > > g in the common object header in a similar way as [RFC5440], i.e. if a > PCEP > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb "similarly" to avoid > wordiness. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
