Subject: Re: [Pce] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with DISCUSS)

From: Jonathan Hardwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 09:24:57 +0000

Hi Warren, Ignas,

Sorry for the slow reply.  I think Deborah already explained our intent on the telechat.  As this document does not actually define any new path setup types (just a mechanism to allow multiple path setup types) we can really only make generalized statements about the sorts of issues that should be considered if a particular new setup type is introduced.  We chose to include a list of questions that anyone adding a new path setup type would need to answer.

To clarify this intent, I have made the following change.

OLD
   This document generalises PCEP to allow path setup methods other than
   RSVP-TE to be used by the network.  It is possible that, in a given
   network, multiple path setup methods will be used.  It is also
   possible that not all devices will support the same set of path setup
   methods.  Managing networks that combine multiple path setup methods
   may therefore raise some challenges from a configuration and
   observability point of view.

   Each document that introduces a new path setup type to PCEP must
   include a manageability section.  The manageability section must
   explain how operators can manage PCEP with the new path setup type.
   It must address the following questions, which are generally
   applicable when working with multiple path setup types in PCEP.

NEW
   This document generalises PCEP to allow path setup methods other than
   RSVP-TE to be used by the network (but does not define any new path
   setup types, besides RSVP-TE).  It is possible that, in a given
   network, multiple path setup methods will be used.  It is also
   possible that not all devices will support the same set of path setup
   methods.  Managing networks that combine multiple path setup methods
   may therefore raise some challenges from a configuration and
   observability point of view.

   Each document that defines a new Path Setup Type in the Path Setup
   Type Registry (Section 8.2) must include a manageability section.
   The manageability section must explain how operators can manage PCEP
   with the new path setup type.  It must address the following
   questions, which are generally applicable when working with multiple
   path setup types in PCEP.

END

Best regards
Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Kumari [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 05 April 2018 00:24
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with DISCUSS)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ignas balloted NoObj; I'll be the baddie.

Section 6.  Manageability Considerations says:
---
Each document that introduces a new path setup type to PCEP must
   include a manageability section.  The manageability section must
   explain how operators can manage PCEP with the new path setup type.
   It must address the following questions, which are generally
   applicable when working with multiple path setup types in PCEP.

   o  What are the criteria for when devices will use the new path setup
      type in PCEP, and how can the operator control this?

   o  How can the network be migrated to the new path setup type, and
      are there any backwards compatibility issues that operators need
      to be aware of?

   o  Are paths set up using the new path setup type intended to coexist
      with other paths over the long term and, if so, how is this
      situation managed with PCEP?
----

So, I see lots of open questions, but no answers to any of these....

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 14:58:22 +0000

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:25 AM Jonathan Hardwick <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Warren, Ignas,
>
> Sorry for the slow reply.  I think Deborah already explained our intent on
> the telechat.

​Yup -- somehow I'd *completely* missed the intent / text explaining that.
Deborah pointed it out on the call and I cleared my DISCUSS. ​

> As this document does not actually define any new path setup types (just a
> mechanism to allow multiple path setup types) we can really only make
> generalized statements about the sorts of issues that should be considered
> if a particular new setup type is introduced.  We chose to include a list
> of questions that anyone adding a new path setup type would need to answer.
>

​Awesome, thank you!
W​

> Cc: [email-masked]; Julien Meuric <
> [email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf