On July 14, 2025 at 5:12:48 AM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
Hi Jie! Thanks for the update! I have a couple of remaining points below. Thanks! Alvaro. ... > (1) According to the WG Policies, please add an Implementation Description > section. > > https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/spring/WG_Policies > > [Jie] We will check and provide this information in a later version. ACK ... > 216 Although it is possible that each resource-aware prefix-SID is > 217 allocated with a set of dedicated resources on every node and link in > 218 the associated topology and/or algorithm, the overhead of per-prefix > 219 resource reservation is usually considered unacceptable in both > 220 control plane signaling and data plane states, and it is likely some > 221 of the allocated resources will be wasted. A more practical resource > 222 allocation approach is RECOMMENDED in this document, which is that a > 223 common set of network resources is allocated by the network nodes and > 224 links participating in the topology and/or algorithm, and this common > 225 set of network resource is associated with a group of resource-aware > 226 prefix-SIDs. Such a common set of network resources constitutes a > 227 network resource group. For a given tuple, > 228 there can be one or multiple network resource groups. This way, a > 229 group of resource-aware prefix-SIDs which are associated with the > 230 same tuple can share the set of network > 231 resources in a resource group. The association between the SR SIDs > 232 and a resource group can be provisioned using the management plane or > 233 a control plane. > ... > [major] "Such a common set of network resources constitutes a network > resource group." > > The set is defined here as a "network resource group", but "resource group" is mostly used later in the text. Please be consistent! > > > [Jie] OK, in this version “resource group” is used consistently. One instance remains...in the paragraph above. ... > 245 For one IGP prefix, multiple resource-aware prefix-SIDs can be > 246 allocated. Each resource-aware prefix-SID may be associated with a > 247 unique tuple, in this case different > > 248 algorithm> tuples can be used to distinguish the resource-aware > 249 prefix-SIDs of the same prefix. In another case, for one IGP prefix, > 250 multiple resource-aware prefix-SIDs may be associated with the same > 251 tuple but different resource groups, then an > 252 additional control plane distinguisher needs to be introduced to > 253 distinguish different resource-aware prefix-SIDs associated with the > 254 same but different resource groups. > > > [major] This paragraph presents two options: "resource-aware prefix-SID may > be associated with a unique tuple", or, "multiple resource-aware prefix-SIDs > may be associated with the same tuple but different resource groups". Please > settle on one! > > IMO, the first option is "cleaner" because it doesn't require "an additional control plane distinguisher" (which would also be out of scope). > > > [Jie] Yes the first option is simpler, while the second option can provider > better scalability (require less topologies or algorithms) thus it is also > mentioned here. The control plane extension is out of the scope of this > document. If you want to keep both, then please include some text explaining the operational pros and cons of each. Maybe add a subsection (§2.1.1: Operational Considerations). Also, be explicit about the suggested extension being out of scope.
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
