On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:15:05PM +0000, Jonathan Hardwick wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:dromasca@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 28 February 2018 15:23 > To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: pce@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type.all@xxxxxxxx; dromasca@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-08 > > 2. How are the new TLVs going to be deployed and managed? Does an operator have the option of selecting one LSP setup method or the other? How and what are the criteria of selections? > > 3. There is no discussion about initial setup and configuration. Are there any initial configuration parameters? If yes, how are they set up? > > 4. Are there any backwards compatibility and migration path issues operators should be aware about? > > 5. What is the expected impact on network operation? > > 6. How is correct operation visible to the operators? Are there any fault conditions that need to be reported to operators? > > 7. Are there any existing management interfaces (e.g. YANG models) that need to be defined or extended? > > Jon> I think the above points 2..7 are really good questions to be asking about each new path setup type that we introduce. In a draft that is agnostic of path setup type, I don't really know how to answer them. For example, I would expect draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing to answer these questions in the context of configuring and enabling PCEP for segment routing. Do you think that there is something we can usefully say about working with multiple path setup types in general? One thing you could do is include that list of questions in the document as things that authors of new path setup types should think about. -Benjamin
