So it is intentional that this draft prohibits that behavior (PCE driven
establishment)?
Yours,
Joel
On 2/16/17 11:35 PM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
Hi Joel,
Regarding your comment -
Is the intention to prohibit the driving
of LSP creation from the PCE?
This capability is described in -
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (document expired recently, authors should refresh it)
Thanks,
Dhruv
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: 17 February 2017 09:08
To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.all@xxxxxxxx; pce@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [Pce] Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-??
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-02-16
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-28
IESG Telechat date: 2017-03-16
Summary:
Major issues:
Minor issues:
At the end of section 5.4, the text talks about a PCE accepting status
updates even if the stateful capability has not been negotiated. Which is
fine. But as written, the text seems to say that doing so means that the
PCE will be able to "build and maintain an up to date view of the state of
the PCC's LSPs". However, if the capability has not been negotiated, I do
not see how the PCE can count on getting full and timely state reports. Trying
to infer why a PCC is sending such a report in the absence of the agreement
seems problematic.
This comment may be a misunderstanding or mis-expectation on my part.
I would have expected one of the ways o using an active PCE is to have the
PCE decide (under suitable circumstances) that an LSP is needed between two
PCCs. As far as I can tell, the text in section
5.8.2 and 5.8.3 prohibits that. A PCE is only allowed to send an LSP Update
Request (in a PCUpd message) for an LSP that has been delegated to it. At
that point I thought that a PCC could delegate a block of unsetup LSPs to
the PCE. But then looking at 5.8.2, the text states that for each delegation,
the PCC must request an initial path. That seems to prohibit delegating a
block of LSPs for future updates. Is the intention to prohibit the driving
of LSP creation from the PCE?
I have looked but I can not find the text explaining the significance
and use of the Symbolic path name. It is mandated by the draft. There seems
to be an implicit assumption taht it is needed by the PCE. If the explanation
of how or why it is needed is not present, it should be.
Nits/editorial comments:
Should the text on the S bit in section 7.3 (the LSP Object
definition) note that it should be set to 0 on all messages sent by the PCE?
Should that also be stated for the R bit? And the O bits?
Section 9.2 seems very odd. It states that the IETF "SHOULD" do some
additional work. I understand why teh work is needed. But this does not
seem to match the RFC 2119 meaning of SHOULD as it does not apply to eitehr
the implementor or the implementation.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce