Subject: Re: [Pce] WG LC of draft-ietf-pce-association-group

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:56:04 -0000

Very bad of me to be so late responding. I have put aside all minor wrinkles
because of that.

But...

> > 5.1
> >
> >    R (Removal - 1 bit):  when set, the requesting PCE peer requires the
> >       removal of an LSP from the association group.  This flag is used
> >       for ASSOCIATION object in PCRpt and PCUpd message, the flag is
> >       ignored in other PCEP messages.
> >
> > What does R==0 signify?
> >
> [[Dhruv Dhody]] Not removal! :)
> Do you see a need for some text here? (This would be similar to R flag in LSP
> object for PCRpt?)

Possible meanings are...

"PCE peer requires retention"
"PCE peer does not require removal"
"PCE peer requests removal"
"PCE peer requests retention"

You should say!

> > 5.3
> >
> > Presumably if the R bit is set and the LSP was not in the association, we
> > act as though it had been and we had removed it?
> >
> [[Dhruv Dhody]] We have this text in the draft -
> 
>    If a PCEP speaker receives ASSOCIATION object with R bit set for
>    removal, and the association group (identified by association
>    parameters) is not known, it MUST return a PCErr message with Error-
>    Type 26 (Early allocation by IANA) "Association Error" and Error-
>    Value 4 "Association unknown".
> 
> Since this LSP is not in the association, we considered this as an association
not
> known in the context of the LSP and re-used the error. If this is not clear we
could
> define a new error-value instead?

It works, but seems suboptimal. 
The intent is "make the group no longer contain the LSP".
The sender now has to handle two "success" results:
1. working as normal
2. this error case

Thanks for the work,
Adrian