Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-pce-multipath-18
review-ietf-pce-multipath-18-rtgdir-early-li-2026-01-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-multipath
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 29)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2026-01-29
Requested 2026-01-08
Requested by Dhruv Dhody
Authors Mike Koldychev , Samuel Sidor
I-D last updated 2026-09-28 (Latest revision 2026-06-23)
Completed reviews Opsdir Early review of -19 by Italo Busi (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -18 by Cheng Li (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -25 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -25 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -27 by Vidhi Goel (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Cheng Li
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-pce-multipath by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/cY8yJP-wW35cjqnw5N5wT2W51KI
Reviewed revision 18 (document currently at 29)
Result Has nits
Completed 2026-01-22
review-ietf-pce-multipath-18-rtgdir-early-li-2026-01-22-00
This document is well-written, and clear. Thanks to the authors. I have some
comments and questions below, please check.

BTW, it looks like we have 7 authors now, you might need to address this.

Questions:
1.
Section 2.1
However, each PCEP Label Switched Path (LSP) can contain only a single ERO,
which prevents the encoding of multiple Segment Lists within the same SR
Candidate Path.

[Cheng]I do not understand the logic of this sentence and the previous
sentence.one single ERO,presnets the encoding of multiple SL?

2.
Section 3.4
This functionality is not part of the SR Policy Architecture [RFC9256], but is
something optional that may be implemented for certain specialized use cases.
One such use case is the Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) SR Policy
[I-D.draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy]. [Cheng]I can understand this TLV is used
for backup. But how this is used for multicast? The traffic will be copied N
times and forward to each path?

3
Section 3.5
Length (16 bits): 16.

[3].Suggest to clarify more, to describe the length. 16 is not clear to me.
From the figure, it is a 12 bytes TLV. Please also clarify the length field in
other TLVs, same problem. Thank you.

Nits:
1.
Certain traffic engineering path computation problems require solutions that
consist of multiple traffic paths that together form a solution. Returning a
single traffic path does not provide a valid solution.

[Cheng]
__New__
Certain traffic engineering path computation problems require solutions that
consist of multiple traffic paths that together form a solution. However,
current PCEP extension can only return a single traffic path, which can not
meet the requirements.

2.
The new Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) mechanisms are
designed to be generic, where possible, to allow for future re-use outside of
SR Policy.

[Cheng]
__NEW__
The new Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) mechanisms are
designed to be generic, which allows for future re-use outside of SR Policy.

3.
The fraction of flows a specific ERO/RRO carries is derived from the ratio of
its weight to the sum of the weights of all other paths. ? [Cheng]The fraction
of flows _that_ a ?

4.
B: If set, indicates a pure backup path.
[Cheng]what is the definition of 'pure backup path?'