Everything is fine for me.
Thank you.
Regards,
Lionel
Le 13 avr. 2017 17:50, Julien Meuric
<julien(_dot_)meuric(_at_)orange(_dot_)com> a écrit :
Hi Lionel,
Thank you for following up. I think we're almost done. My answers below
as [JM2].
Julien
Apr. 12, 2017 - <lionel(_dot_)morand(_at_)orange(_dot_)com:
[snip]
=====
[JM] NACK! ;-) Actually, the passive mode is advertised using the
Stateful-capability-object TLV with the U bit unset, the active
mode by setting the U bit.
[LM2] "il faut être sorti de Saint-Cyr pour comprendre" as we say in
french :)
[JM2] Let me check with my colleague next door... ;-)
Could be good to add something like "(as indicated by the U-bit clear
in Stateful-capability-object)"
[JM2] ACK!
=====
Note that even if the update capability has not been advertised,
a PCE can still accept LSP Status Reports from a PCC and build
and maintain an up to date view of the state of the PCC's LSPs.
[LM] I don't undersand. Is it not in contradiction with
"If the PCEP Speaker on the PCE supports the extensions of this
draft but did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of
a PCRpt message from the PCC, it MUST generate a PCErr with
error- type 19 (Invalid Operation), error-value 5 (Attempted LSP
State Report if active stateful PCE capability was not
advertised) (see Section 8.5) and it SHOULD terminate the PCEP
session."
Or does it mean that there is another way than PCRpt message for
the PCC to send LSP status reports to the PCE?
Jon> ACK. I think that the statement in the draft is bogus and
I propose to delete this sentence from it.
=====
[JM] I do not think that the text is bogus: - case 1: no advertised
capability on update but advertised on report (i.e. passive
stateful) => no error message; - case 2: no advertised capability
on update nor report (i.e. stateless) => error.
[LM2] After multiple readings and thanks to your explanation, I think
I have understood. Am I correct saying that the PCE will accept LSP
Status Reports from a PCC ONLY if the stateful PCE capability has
been advertised (i.e. Stateful Capability TLV with the 'LSP Update'
Flag cleared)?
[JM2] Almost... but not fully! Your main sentence is true, your
parenthesis is not. The latter should be rephrased as "i.e. inclusion of
the Stateful Capability TLV". Indeed, passive (report, no update) and
active (report + update) are two possible modes within stateful, i.e. we
do not care about the 'LSP Update' flag when talking about
Report/"stateful at large".
If it is the case, is it really required to keep this
text, as in the previous paragraph we find the conditions to
accept/reject reports from the PCC?
[JM2] AFAIU, the sentence clarifies the fact that an error on an update
attempt does not lead to an error on the report feature.
[JM2] Side note to the (RFC?) editor, on page 11: s/this draft/this
document/
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.