Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 17:31:27 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model
        Authors         : Edward Crabbe
                          Ina Minei
                          Siva Sivabalan
                          Robert Varga
	Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2015-03-05

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 stateful 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 IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:05:08 +0000

Hi, 

Thanks for the update and taking care of the comments posted during WG LC [1]. 

But some issues are still open, let me repeat them - 

(1) The text should be in line with RFC7399 [2]; where 'instantiate LSP' is marked out of scope. The consensus was to use 'suggest' or 'recommend' with ''instantiate LSP'. See [3]. I would like this to align between documents, but if no one else is bothered with it, then I will shut up. 

(2) Some text on LSPDB Synchronization is needed, perhaps in section 3.2, see sample text - 

   LSP State Synchronization procedure is described in section 5.4 of
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. During State Synchronization, a PCC
   SHOULD also send LSP State Report for PCE-Initiated LSP with Create
   flag and SYNC flag in the LSP Object set to 1. PCC SHOULD also
   include the optional SPEAKER-IDENTITY-ID TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-
   pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] identifying the PCE that requested
   the LSP creation. At the end of state synchronization, PCE SHOULD
   also do a sanity check between the reported PCE-Initiated LSPs and
   local configurations at PCE to initiate LSPs. For any mismatch, PCE
   SHOULD send PCInitiate message to either initiate (again) or remove
   those LSPs.

Thanks again! 

Regards,
Dhruv

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg04092.html
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7399#section-20
[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg03721.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: 06 March 2015 07:01
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03.txt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce