Subject: Re: [Pce] Last Call: <draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10.txt> (PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model) to Proposed Standard

From: Mahendra Negi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 13:12:18 +0530

Dear Authors,

I have 3 points as below:

1.
Section 4.1:
It doesn't mention about U Bit.

(MN)  I assume U Bit MUST be set to set initiate-capability (I Bit),
suggest to update the same.

2.
(MN) During LSP synchronization LSP Initiate SHOULD be avoided, as this may
lead to other issues, if this can be mentioned in the draft..

3.
Section 5.3:
The only exception to this rule is for LSPs for which the State Timeout
Interval timer is running (see Section 6
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10#section-6>).

Section 6:
A PCE (either the original or one of its backups) sends a PCInitiate
message, including just the SRP and LSP objects, and carrying the PLSP-ID
of the LSP it wants to take control of. If the PCC receives a PCInitiate
message with a PLSP-ID pointing to an orphaned PCE- initiated LSP, then it
MUST redelegate that LSP to the PCE.

(MN)  Why is this exception required? Why can't PCE just takes control of
this orphan LSP? As the orphan LSP may be used by service, why to interrupt?
Moreover new initiate request may have different destination and different
attributes.
Or please kindly explain if my undestanding is not correct.

Regards,
Mahendra
Huawei Tech.

The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce)
to
consider the following document: - 'PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP
Setup in a Stateful PCE Model'
  <draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10.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
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2017-08-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.

   The extensions for stateful PCE provide active control of
   Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label
   Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates
   control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE.  This
   document describes the creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs
   under the stateful PCE model.

The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce