Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) Auto-Bandwidth Adjustment with Stateful PCE
RFC 8733

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Deborah Brungard Yes

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Comment (2019-09-18 for -11)
** I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS position on the need for clarity in the definition of Overflow-Count and Overflow-Threshold

** Section 5.2.x.  Error handling:
-- A number of the sub-TLVs define ranges smaller than would be possible given the number of bit (e.g., 1..604800 in a 32-bit field; 1.100), how would an error be signaled for values used outside that range?

-- For values that are [IEEE.754.1985]), how should negative value be processed?

** Nits:
-- Section 1.  Typo. s/a Active stateful/an Active stateful/

-- Section 5.2.2.2.  For consistency with the other sections s/1 to 604800/1 to 604800 (7 days)/

-- Section 6.6.  Typo. s/signalling/signaling/

Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2019-09-26)
Thanks you for addressing my Discuss (and Comment) points!

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2019-09-09 for -11)
Thanks for quickly addressing the TSV-ART review (and thanks to David for this very clear and well explained review)! I would have preferred to actually see a normative requirement as original proposed by David ("sample interval SHOULD NOT be less than 1 minute") in section 5.2.1. Also I would have expected the proposed new text to show up somewhere in section 4 (maybe even as a new subsection).

Barry Leiba (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2019-09-16 for -11)
No email
send info
[Updates have been made; thanks, everyone, for the discussion and for considering my comments.]

Thanks for another clear document.  There are some "SHOULD" key words in one section that I would like to discuss, and that I think we ought to be able to resolve without much difficulty:

— Section 5.7 —

There are various “SHOULD”s in this section, and I have the same comment about all of them: BCP 14 says, about “SHOULD”, that “there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.”  I see no guidance here to help the reader understand what such circumstances and implications are, so I can’t see how an implementer can evaluate the situation.  Can you provide any help here?

And these below are purely editorial comments, which need no detailed response; please just consider them.

— Section 1 —

   Over time, based on the varying traffic pattern, an LSP established
   with a certain bandwidth may require to adjust the bandwidth reserved
   in the network dynamically.

“may require adjustment of the bandwidth”

   This is similar to
   the Passive stateful PCE model, while the Passive stateful PCE uses
   path request/reply mechanism, the Active stateful PCE uses
   report/update mechanism.

NEW
   This is similar to
   the Passive stateful PCE model: while the Passive stateful PCE uses
   a path request/reply mechanism, the Active stateful PCE uses a
   report/update mechanism.
END

   This document defines the PCEP extensions needed to support Auto-
   Bandwidth feature in a Active stateful PCE model

NEW
   This document defines the PCEP extensions needed to support an Auto-
   Bandwidth feature in an Active stateful PCE model
END

— Section 2.3 —

      This value indicates how many times
      consecutively, the percentage or absolute difference

Add a comma after “times”.

— Section 3 —

   The PCEP speaker supporting this document must have a mechanism

“A PCEP speaker”.

   o  It is required to identify and inform the PCC, which LSPs are
      enabled with Auto-Bandwidth feature.  Not all LSPs in some
      deployments would like their bandwidth to be dependent on the
      real-time bandwidth usage but be constant as set by the operator.

NEW
   o  It is necessary to identify and inform the PCC which LSPs have
      the Auto-Bandwidth feature enabled.  In some deployments, not
      all LSPs would like their bandwidth to be dependent on the
      real-time bandwidth usage, but would rather be constant as set
      by the operator.
END

— Section 4.1 —

   The initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including
   zero), in practice, it can be operator expected value based on design
   and planning.

NEW
   The initial LSP bandwidth can be set to an arbitrary value (including
   zero).  In practice, it can be set to an expected value based on design
   and planning.
END

— Section 4.2 —

   When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate
   is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval (which can be
   configured by an operator and the default value as 5 minutes) by the
   PCC, when the PCC is the head-end node of the LSP.  The traffic rate
   samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval period (in the
   Up or Down direction) (which can be configured by an operator and the
   default value as 24 hours).

NEW
   When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate
   is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval by the PCC, when the
   PCC is the head-end node of the LSP.  The sample interval can be
   configured by an operator, with a default value of 5 minutes.
   
   The traffic rate samples are accumulated over the Adjustment-Interval
   period (in the Up or Down direction).  The period can be configured by
   an operator, with a default value of 24 hours.
END

   The PCC, in-charge of calculating the
   bandwidth to be adjusted, can decide to adjust the bandwidth

Remove both commas.

   Only if the difference between the
   current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw) and the current bandwidth
   reservation is greater than or equal to the Adjustment-Threshold
   (percentage or absolute value) (which can be configured by an
   operator and the default as 5 percentage), the LSP bandwidth is
   adjusted (upsized) to the current bandwidth demand (MaxAvgBw).

I’m sorry: I can’t made any sense out of this text and, thus, can’t suggest a fix.  Please try rephrasing this.  When you do, please make it more than one sentence, and please avoid consecutive parenthesized phrases, which are awkward.

   However, longer
   adjustment-interval can result in an undesirable effect

“a longer”

   To avoid this, the
   Auto-Bandwidth feature may pre-maturely expire the adjustment-
   interval and adjust the LSP bandwidth

“prematurely”, with no hyphen.
“adjustment interval”, with no hyphen.

— Section 5.1 —

   o  The PCEP speaker that does not recognize the extensions defined in

“A PCEP speaker”

   o  If the PCEP speaker that supports the extensions defined in this

“If a PCEP speaker supports”

— Section 5.2 —

   Future specification can define additional sub-TLVs.

“specifications”

   If sub-TLVs are not present, the
   default values as specified in this document are used or otherwise
   based on the local policy are assumed.

I can’t make sense of that sentence; please re-phrase it.

— Section 5.2.3.2 —

   o  Reserved: SHOULD be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on receipt.

Why is this “SHOULD”, when other reserved values have been “MUST”?

(Same comment in 5.2.3.4, 5.2.5.1, 5.2.5.2, 5.2.5.3, and 5.2.5.4.)

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Adam Roach) No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection