Hi Samuel, Thanks for taking over the editor's pen for this I-D.
Some minor comments - (1) This text in the introduction - OLD: This document updates [RFC8231] by modifying Section 5.8.2 to make it optional for SR Policy LSPs, allowing a PCC to delegate an SR Policy LSP by sending a PCRpt without the preliminary PCReq and PCRep messages, with aim of reducing PCEP message exchanges and simplifying implementation. NEW: This document updates Section 5.8.2 of [RFC8231], making the PCReq message optional for SR Policy LSPs, allowing a PCC to delegate an SR Policy LSP by sending a PCRpt without the preliminary PCReq and PCRep messages, with the aim of reducing the PCEP message exchanges and simplifying implementation. END Also I think we need to clearly state what we mean by "SR Policy LSP". A simple definition would be any LSP i.e. part of SRPA, but if you do that also update the last sentence in section 3.5 -- "The above applies only to SR Policy LSPs and does not affect other LSP types...". (2) Please add a new subsection in the IANA consideration for the SR Policy Capability TLV flag field. This document requests IANA to maintain a new registry under the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group. The new registry is called "SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field". New values are to be assigned by "IETF Review" [RFC8126]. Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities. Bit (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit). Description. Reference. <add the table, and make sure bit 28 is marked as unassigned to align with figure 6> (3) Update section 6.7 and 6.8 to say "IETF review" instead of "Standards Action" for the PCEP registry. For section 6.6, standards action is aligned to what IDR decided under the "Segment Routing" registry group. Also, please drop the word "drop" in the section title for both 6.7 and 6.8. (4) For table in section 6.5, use the table from https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-10.html#section-8.4 that includes both PCEP and BGP values. You can also highlight in text that the value used by PCEP is different from BGP. (5) Section 8, please add - "As per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions can only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs belonging to the same administrative authority, using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best current practices in [RFC9325]."; Also, in the list of references, you should also add RFC 9603 (PCEP-SRv6) and RFC 8697 (Association). (6) Section 5.4, move the reserved description at the bottom, the current placement is incorrect. (7) Section 5.3, add that the TLV is carried in the LSP object. (8) Please add the Manageability consideration section. Sorry I missed that earlier. Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:22 AM <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-19.txt is now > available. It is a work item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of > the > IETF. > > Title: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) > Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths > Authors: Mike Koldychev > Siva Sivabalan > Samuel Sidor > Colby Barth > Shuping Peng > Hooman Bidgoli > Name: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-19.txt > Pages: 28 > Dates: 2025-01-14 > > Abstract: > > Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any > path. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) > that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into > an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend > node. An SR Policy is made of one or more candidate paths. > > This document specifies the Path Computation Element Communication > Protocol (PCEP) extension to signal candidate paths of the SR Policy. > Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow stateful bring > up of an SR Label Switched Path (LSP), without using the path > computation request and reply messages. This document is applicable > to both Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over > IPv6 (SRv6). > > The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/ > > There is also an HTMLized version available at: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-19 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-19 > > Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at: > rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
