Subject: [Pce] Question on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-11

From: Cyril Margaria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:05:57 -0400

Dear authors, PCE'ers,

Following the  comment on the Error-Type 19, Error-value 4 comments
(PCNtf), I have the following additional comments/questions regarding
section 7.3.3 LSP Error Code TLV:
   - When should each error code be sent, documents usually describe the
specific conditions when an error is sent, here the condition is that the
update failed, but the description of the errors is not very specific.
  - The Value 2 seems redundant with Error-Type 19, Error-value 4, or is
this error meant for the PCE to slow down the Update rate?
 - Value 3 (Too many pending LSP update requests) : What should be the PCE
action in that case, should the PCE stop sending the messages, slow down,
Could a NOTIFICATION object with a PCC overload state report be used,
following RFC5440? In addition should this the number of update request be
considered in section 9?
 - Value 4 (Unacceptable parameters) : How are the not acceptable parameter
reported, should the PCE retry with another set of parameters?
 -Value 5 : What should the PCE do in that case? is it recommended that it
stop sending updates? Could you explain why a PCE is not allowed to set LSP
parameters on a LSP in admin state down?
 - Value 6 (LSP preempted): Which kind of preemption  (administrative,
signaling, other PCE??) Is there a recommended action from the PCE, Should
the PCE compute a new Path or is it expected that the delegation is removed?

Best regards,
Cyril