Thank you Al for the review.
Please see replies inline with <RG>...
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 6:23 PM Al Morton via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Al Morton
Review result: Has Nits
This document defines PCEP extensions for grouping two unidirectional
MPLS-TE LSPs into an Associated Bidirectional LSP.
Specifically, this document defines two new
Association Types, "Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association" and
"Double-sided Bidirectional LSP Association", as well as
"Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV" to carry additional
information for the association.
Comments:
Thank you for including Section 8, Manageability Considerations.
I'm seeking clarification for the following requirement (although it may be
completely clear to those who are knee-deep in this terminology):
Section 4.1
...
o The Tunnel (as defined in [RFC3209]) of forward and reverse LSPs
of the Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association on the
originating endpoint node MUST be the same, albeit with reverse
endpoint nodes.
as currently written, the requirement says that
two preceding nouns MUST be the same.
But is it:
"The Tunnel *containing the* forward and reverse LSPs..."?
Or is it,
"The *Tunnels associated with the* forward and reverse LSPs ..." ?
Or something else?
<RG> How about following text?
The Tunnel (as defined in [RFC3209]) containing the forward and reverse LSPs of the Single-sided Bidirectional LSP Association on the originating node MUST be the same [RFC7551], both LSPs albeit with with reverse endpoint nodes.
[RFC3209] simple definitions are (both seem to be unidirectional):
LSP Tunnel
An LSP which is used to tunnel below normal IP routing and/or
filtering mechanisms.
Traffic Engineered Tunnel (TE Tunnel)
A set of one or more LSP Tunnels which carries a traffic trunk.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Another request for clarification:
5.6. State Synchronization
During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing
Bidirectional LSP Associations to the Stateful PCE as per [RFC8697].
After the state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all stale
Bidirectional LSP Associations.
What is the procedure to determine a stale association, a time-out
or simply the absence of a previously association in a report?
Is there a passage covering stale determination in 8697, another
reference, or a passage in the current memo that I missed?
<RG> The absence of the previous association in a report. I could not find any relevant text in the RFC 8697. How about following?
5.6. State Synchronization
During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing
Bidirectional LSP Associations to the Stateful PCE as per [RFC8697].
After the state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all previous
Bidirectional LSP Associations absent in the report.
Bidirectional LSP Associations to the Stateful PCE as per [RFC8697].
After the state synchronization, the PCE MUST remove all previous
Bidirectional LSP Associations absent in the report.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Editorial:
4.2. Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV
The "Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV" an OPTIONAL TLV for use
s/an/is an/
<RG> Ack.
Thanks,
Rakesh
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
