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
