Hi Joe, Thank you for your careful review. On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:06 AM Joe Clarke via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Joe Clarke > Review result: Ready > > I have been requested to review this draft on behalf of the OPS Directorate. > This draft describes PCEP extensions for MPLS-TE LSP automatic bandwidth > adjustment with stateful PCE. In general, I think the draft is well-written, > and I appreciate the addition of the operational considerations section. It is > in that section I have a couple of comments. > > In section 6.2 you say: > > A Management Information Base (MIB) module for modeling PCEP is > described in [RFC7420]. However, one may prefer the mechanism for > configuration using YANG data model [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. > > However, when you look at that MIB module, there is only one read-write object. > On top of that, the IESG has mandated that new MIB modules should not have > read-write objects. I think your language pointing one to the YANG module > should be stronger. Perhaps: > > A MIB module for gathering operational information about PCEP is defined in > [RFC7420]. Additionally, the YANG module defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] > provides for both configuration of PCEP as well as operational management. > This is a good suggestion, we will update. > === > > In section 6.6, do you have any more concrete recommendations on a reasonable > limit of LSPs with auto-bandwidth that you have discovered from testing or > operational experience? Providing some data here may prove useful, even if it > is somewhat anecdotal. > > We discussed this and felt reluctance in putting a number down in the RFC, esp when we don't do it for our base published RFCs (ex. such as how many LSPs can be delegated to a PCE). I also checked with at least one vendor and was told that it is quite dependent on the deployment scenario and would let the operator decide. Thanks! Dhruv
