Hi authors, Thanks for writing this documents, it is well written, easy to understand. However, before providing detailed comments on text, I am curious about why we need to extend all of this in PCEP?
It looks to me that S-BFD may have several parameters for now, and will have potential new parameters in the future. When talking about configuration, it is better to use configuration method? Like NETCONF/YANG? To avoid to introduce complicated and too flexible extension to control protocol. A possible way(also a better way) may be, 1. Define the profile/template of configuration, and use NETCONF/YANG to configure it on the PCC. 2. Then we can use a mechanism to activate one of the profile/template. For example, adding a profile ID/template ID in PCEP protocol. In this way, we can minimize the extension of PCEP while providing the flexibility of configuration. I will recommend to read some related drafts, hope they can help our discussion. l draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles-04 l draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-template Before this concern is addressed, I may not support this adoption. But still thank you for your contributions! Thanks, Cheng From: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn <xiong.q...@zte.com.cn> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 9:05 AM To: res...@yahoo.com; rtg-...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com Cc: draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-paramet...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03 Hi, I agree with Reshad. I just read this draft and I am confused with the missing background and references about the S-BFD. For example, in section 4.3.2.2 and 4.3.2.3, it would be better to add explanations about the parameters such as the "Multiplier" and "Remote Discriminator". Regards, Quan [Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03 Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com<mailto:res...@yahoo.com>> Tue, 07 January 2025 00:13 UTCShow header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/?gbt=1&index=> Hi, My PCE exposure is a bit dated, so I can't really say anything about adoption. I took a look at the doc:- It's not clear to me why Min Tx Interval is in milliseconds in 4.3.2.2 (as opposed to microseconds as in RFC5880)- The base BFD doc (RFC5880) is in the reference list, but the S-BFD documents (RFC788x) are not.- There should be a reference for the LSPA object? Regards,Reshad. On Saturday, January 4, 2025 at 06:11:15 AM EST, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com><mailto:%3...@dhruvdhody.com%3e> wrote: Hi, Keeping the BFD WG in the loop about this ongoing adoption call in the PCE WG. Please respond to the PCE WG mailing list with your comments/concerns if any. Thanks! Dhruv ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com><mailto:%3...@dhruvdhody.com%3e>Date: Sat, Jan 4, 2025 at 4:37 PM Subject: WG Adoption of draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03 To: <pce@ietf.org><mailto:%3c...@ietf.org%3e>Cc: pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org><mailto:%3cpce-cha...@ietf.org%3e>, <draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-paramet...@ietf.org><mailto:%3cdraft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-paramet...@ietf.org%3e>Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters-03https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fizgeer-pce-pcep-bfd-parameters/Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. Please respond by Monday 20th Jan 2025. Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks! Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
