Subject: [Pce] comments on draft-sivabalan-pce-policy-identifier

From: Girish Birajdar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:57:14 -0800

Authors,

1. The objective seems to be similar to draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles-04.
    I believe this draft simplifies the encoding aspect by sending the
policy-id with RP/SRP object.

2. "operation" section mentions PCErr with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not
supported), this implies the PCC should not send more requests with
profile-id.
    Wouldn't it be better to advertise the PCE capability in Open message?

3. Motivation "a PCC can request a path that is diverse from any other path
originating from other PCC(s) from a stateful PCE."
   For the above application, the process in
draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles-04 is better - IHMO.   The first profile-id
could be used for "path diversity" policy - the extended profile-id would
be used for grouping the LSPs that need to be path-diverse. The 2nd profile
id was added in last draft.

  In current draft,  operator has to allocate multiple policy Ids for "path
diverse" (one each for group of path diverse LSPs) - the 24bit range is
probably sufficient,  however there is overhead on operator to manage
profile-ids across different policies.

3b. It would not be possible to reserve IDs for policies mentioned in
motivation i.e. path diversity. If more policy application are desired -
use of reserved value eliminates configuration on PCE (operator side). I
believe this was possible with draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles.

Regards,
Girish