Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your clarification! It is much better for understanding.
It would be better to add your explanation into the section 4.1 and remove the
sentence "A Tunnel is identified by PLSP-ID".
And from my veiw, the LSPs and Tunnels are all RSVP-signaled objects. But in
PCEP-sepcific context, there is just LSP object. It may be confused with the
first sentence in section 4.1.
Best Regards,
Quan
Original
From: AndrewStone(Nokia) <andrew.st...@nokia.com>
To: 熊泉00091065;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>;
Date: 2025年04月09日 22:58
Subject: Re: Re:[Pce] WG Adoption of draft-koldychev-pce-operational-09
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
