Thanks a lot, Ketan.

Version v27 submitted.

Regards,
Samuel

From: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 5:51 PM
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; 
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; 
pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Ketan Talaulikar's Yes on 
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-26: (with COMMENT)

Hi Samuel,

Thanks for the quick response. This looks good to me.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 8:29 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) 
<ssi...@cisco.com<mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Thanks Ketan,

Please let me know if you are fine with attached version. I can submit it then.

Regards,
Samuel

-----Original Message-----
From: Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker 
<nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>>
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 3:04 PM
To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>
Cc: 
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org>;
 pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>; 
pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] Ketan Talaulikar's Yes on 
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-26: (with COMMENT)

Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-26: Yes

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-segment-routing-policy-cp/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for addressing my discuss points/comments and other comments. Following
are further comments suggested to improve the updated text that was introduced.

Provided inline in the idnits format output for the v26 of the document.

209        The term "LSP" in this document represents Candidate Path within an
210        SR Policy.  In the context of SR Policy for SRv6, the term "LSP" in
211        this document refers to an SRv6 path, which is represented as a list
212        of SRv6 segments.

<minor> How about?

CURRENT
In the context of SR Policy for SRv6, the term "LSP" in this document refers to
an SRv6 path, which is represented as a list of SRv6 segments.

SUGGEST
In the context of SR Policy for SRv6 (refer [RFC9603]), the term "LSP" in this
document refers to an SRv6 path, which is represented as a list of SRv6
segments.

249        [RFC8697] specifies the mechanism for the capability advertisement of
250        the Association Types supported by a PCEP speaker by defining an
251        ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an OPEN object.  This
252        capability exchange for the SR Policy Association Type MUST be done
253        before using the SRPA.  To that aim, a PCEP speaker MUST include the
254        SRPA Type (6) in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV and MUST receive the same
255        from the PCEP peer before using the SRPA (Section 6.1).  SRPA MUST be
256        assigned for all SR Policy LSPs by PCEP speaker originating the LSP
257        if capability was advertised by both PCEP speakers.

<major> What would be the error reported by the PCEP speaker if it were to
received an SR LSP (say using mechanism in RFC8664) without an SRPA even after
successful capability negotiation? Perhaps there is an existing error that can
be used?

294        SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier uniquely identifies the SR Policy
295        Candidate Path within the context of an SR Policy.  SR Policy
296        Candidate Path Identifier is assigned by PCEP peer originating the
297        LSP.  Candidate Paths within an SR Policy MUST NOT change their SR
298        Policy Candidate Path Identifiers for the lifetime of the PCEP
299        session.  Candidate Paths within an SR Policy MUST NOT carry same SR
300        Policy Candidate Path Identifiers in their SRPAs.  If the above

<minor> How about?

CURRENT
Candidate Paths within an SR Policy MUST NOT carry same SR Policy Candidate
Path Identifiers in their SRPAs.

SUGGEST
Two or more Candidate Paths within an SR Policy MUST NOT carry same SR Policy
Candidate Path Identifiers in their SRPAs.

< EoR v26 >



_______________________________________________
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>
--- Begin Message ---
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27.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-27.txt
   Pages:   30
   Dates:   2025-04-04

Abstract:

   A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of instructions,
   called "segments" that represent a source-routed policy.  Packet
   flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is
   instantiated.  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 an SR Policy.
   Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow delegation and
   setup 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-27

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27

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

--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to