Hi Quan, Thank you for your support and review. Will include all of your notes and suggestions when doing the next iteration.
Fair point about the potential conflict in sentencing. I believe the intent was to help distinguish the objects a bit more since the term 'LSP' is used in different context in RFC8231. If you consider RFC8231 on one hand says an LSP has a PLSP-ID that never changes, but on the other hand a PLSP-ID object also has(or is?) one or many 'LSPs' in flight for the same PLSP-ID with differing LSP-IDs for MBB. The use of introducing the 'Tunnel' term I believe was to help distinguish the PLSP-ID identified object, which is logically like a container, from, its individual instances of an LSP (identified by the LSP-ID) contained within it. Does this explanation help at all? Or would it help if the text explained and correlated the two sentences together? Thanks Andrew From: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn <xiong.q...@zte.com.cn> Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 at 4:39 AM To: d...@dhruvdhody.com <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Cc: pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>, pce-cha...@ietf.org <pce-cha...@ietf.org>, draft-koldychev-pce-operatio...@ietf.org <draft-koldychev-pce-operatio...@ietf.org> Subject: Re:[Pce] WG Adoption of draft-koldychev-pce-operational-09 CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi WG, I think this document is useful and it helps me to understand the aspects of PCEP database. I support the adoption as an informational I-D. But I suggest to fix the following problems before adoption. 1,When I read this document, I found it a little hard to understand with the editorial issues. For example, in section 4, I suggest to move the LSP-DB (a database of actual LSP state) to the terminology section. And it would be better to use formal English expression such as replacing "we" to "it". OLD: "We use the concept of the LSP-DB, as a database of actual LSP state in the network, to illustrate the internal state of PCEP speakers in response to various PCEP messages." NEW: "The concept of the LSP-DB, as a database of actual LSP state in the network, is used to illustrate the internal state of PCEP speakers in response to various PCEP messages." OLD: "We take the term "LSP" to apply to non-MPLS paths as well, to avoid changing the name. Alternatively, we could rename LSP to "Instance"." NEW: "It could take the term "LSP" to apply to non-MPLS paths as well, to avoid changing the name. Alternatively, it also could rename LSP to "Instance"." OLD: "dataplane" NEW: "data plane" OLD: "SYMBOLIC-NAME" NEW "SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV" OLD: "a instance of a Tunnel" NEW: "an instance of a Tunnel" 2,And I am confused with the defination in section 4.1 "A Tunnel is identified by the PLSP-ID in the LSP object and/or the SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV." and "it(a Tunnel) can have multiple LSPs". But it will be conflict with RFC8231 section 7.3, "PLSP-ID (20 bits): A PCEP-specific identifier for the LSP. A PCC creates a unique PLSP-ID for each LSP that is constant for the lifetime of a PCEP session." Could you please help to clarify that? Thanks! Best Regards, Quan <Hi WG, <This email begins the WG adoption poll for <draft-koldychev-pce-operational-09https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koldychev-pce-operational/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 14th April 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
