I just read this document for IETF last call.
I feel a little bad that I didn't review the document in WG last call since I
normally participate in the PCE WG, but the timing wasn't good.
The document is both well written and clear. I support advancing this document,
but I have a few small comments.
Thanks,
Adrian
---
Requirement 4 has
4. A PCE is not required to support service aware path computation.
Therefore, it MUST be possible for a PCE to reject a PCReq
message with a reason code that indicates service-aware path
computation is not supported.
It may be better to phrase this in terms of legacy systems since
(obviously), a PCE that does not support this spec must still be able to
reject requests. Perhaps...
4. A PCE that supports this specification is not required to provide
service aware path computation to any PCC at any time.
Therefore, it MUST be possible for a PCE to reject a PCReq
message with a reason code that indicates service-aware path
computation is not supported. Furthermore, a PCE that does not
support this specification will either ignore or reject such
requests using pre-existing mechanisms, therefore the requests
MUST be identifiable to legacy PCEs and rejections by legacy
PCEs MUST be acceptable within this specification.
This is not a change to the requirement and doesn't change your protocol
solution.
---
4.1.1 has...
- A path delay metric for the P2P path P = Sum {D(Lpi), (i=1...K)}.
Is it worth noting that the path delay metric is not the effective delay
along the path? That is, delay on the path will also be introduced by
delays in the nodes along the path. However, information about the
delays introduced by nodes along the path is not currently made
available through the routing protocols, and is unlikely to be
consistent as network load varies.
Note that your definition of path delay is good. I am not proposing
any change to the definition, just and explanation of what it is not.
---
In several places in Section 4 you refer to specific bits (P bit,
B bit...). I think it would be helpful to understand that these are
bits in the flags field of the Metric object. Maybe an easy way to
deal with this is...
OLD
The METRIC object is defined in section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising
metric-value, metric-type (T field) and flags. This document defines
the following types for the METRIC object.
NEW
The METRIC object is defined in section 7.8 of [RFC5440], comprising
metric-value, metric-type (T field) and a flags field comprising a
number of bit-flags (B bit, P bit). This document defines the
following types for the METRIC object.
END
---
I think you need to add (a very small amount of) text to describe how
this all works for initiated LSPs. Just like Section 5.
---
4.1.1.1
[RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define the "Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-
TLV" in a 24-bit field.
I think this should be...
[RFC7471] and [RFC7810] define the "Unidirectional Link Delay Sub-
TLV" to report link delay in microseconds in a 24-bit field.
Similarly in 4.1.2.1
---
4.1.6 has
This section defines the following optional types for the METRIC
object for P2MP TE LSPs.
4.1 does not say whether the P2P metrics are optional or mandatory.
I suspect you mean...
- Implementations of this spec must implement TBD1, TBD2, and TBD3
- Implementations of this spec that support P2MP (which is an optional
feature) must support TBD8, TBD9, and TBD10.
---
In 4.1.6.1 when you wrote
- The P2P path delay metric of the path to destination Dest_j is
denoted by LM(Dest_j).
I wonder whether you were thinking "LM means Link delay Metric"?
A bit odd that you have actually written "LM means P2P path delay
metric"
Ditto LVM in 4.1.6.2
---
4.2.3.1
A PCC SHOULD request the PCE to factor in the bandwidth utilization
during path computation by including a BU object in the PCReq
message.
I don't understand the use of "SHOULD" here. I suspect you mean...
A PCC that wants the PCE to factor in the bandwidth utilization
during path computation includes a BU object in the PCReq message.
What you have is a statement that unless there is a good reason why not,
a PCC is supposed to request the PCE to factor in the bandwidth
utilization during path computation.
---
4.2.3.1
I found the following clumsy and suggest a change...
OLD
Multiple BU objects MAY be inserted in a PCReq or a PCRep message for
a given request but there MUST be at most one instance of the BU
object for each type. If, for a given request, two or more instances
of a BU object with the same type are present, only the first
instance MUST be considered and other instances MUST be ignored.
NEW
A PCReq or PCRep message MAY contain multiple BU objects so long as
each is for a different bandwidth utilization type. If a message
contains more than one BU object with the same bandwidth utilization
type, the first MUST be processed by the receiver and subsequent
instances MUST be ignored.
END
---
4.2.3.1 should not define legacy behavior. A legacy node will not see
this spec and cannot be influenced by what you write. So...
OLD
If a PCE receives a PCReq message containing a BU object, and the PCE
does not understand or support the BU object, and the P bit is clear
in the BU object header then the PCE SHOULD simply ignore the BU
object.
If the PCE does not understand the BU object, and the P bit is set in
the BU object header, then the PCE MUST send a PCErr message
containing a PCEP-ERROR Object with Error-Type = 3 (Unknown object)
and Error-value = 1 (Unrecognized object class) as per [RFC5440].
NEW
The behavior of a PCE that does not understand an object that it
receives on PCReq message is defined in [RFC5440] and depends on the
setting of the P bit in the object header (P bit clear means ignore
the object, P but set means return an "Unknown object" error).
END
---
4.2.3.1
Your use of passive voice may cause confusion. You write...
The path computation
request MUST then be cancelled.
Does this mean:
1. The PCE must do not more processing on the request and the PCC must
not expect any further response
2. The PCC is required to issue a message to cancel the request
There are two cases of this text in this section.
---
Section 5 does a nice job for stateful PCE. I think you also need to
cover PCE initiated LSPs.
---
Section 6 needs a reference to RFC 5511 so that the message formats can
be understood.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG
> Sent: 23 August 2016 18:59
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: pce-chairs@xxxxxxxx; pce@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-
> aware@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Pce] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12.txt>
(Extensions
> to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to compute
> service aware Label Switched Path (LSP).) to Proposed Standard
>
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG
> (pce) to consider the following document:
> - 'Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
> (PCEP) to compute service aware Label Switched Path (LSP).'
> <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-12.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2016-09-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.