Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07

"Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com> Tue, 28 October 2014 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <mhartley@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088DD1A89E5 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yR1udUnA74-S for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAF6C1A89E0 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 07:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6697; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414507351; x=1415716951; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=k5dDfbwO4mSQ4eOcHfq/xRA+UDFe0ca9QyVBH9kBSoU=; b=j04mmC61lUCS/DbWzrAls8ESsbg8MV982wIiNUqRg/feXgPAClxsjXzH URFt1n3mqfx2mUyten07jyIk1IZSqGFue+jEl894AiLXnnd6ZPk5yy5oT kMj8JDWaIG+04Ox1ggdXzT754eK8KOI5ru2sh9SxwbM29ROjIp5U2NTku M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgwFAMuqT1StJA2G/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UWATOMAqHTQKBGxYBfYQCAQEBAwEBAQFrCwULAgEIDgoKCxknAgklAgQBDQUIiDAJDclmAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSQMCcxBwqDI4EeBYsmhmGJaIMjg0mDLYoHhACDeGyBBkKBAwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,802,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="91033490"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2014 14:42:30 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9SEgTRZ016517 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:42:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.7.227]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:42:29 -0500
From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS <oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07
Thread-Index: AQHP7t0PN3PpktMpCEyNgz1cY8QfLpw+NtqAgAYOsDCAAFaUgIABACwA
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:42:29 +0000
Message-ID: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14AF4ECF@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
References: <536AAB57.2090403@labn.net> <CFEED041.5B5DC%oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com> <54482AAA.2040602@labn.net> <D06EF41D.6B23A%oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com> <54493009.5040305@labn.net> <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC14AF309F@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com> <544E8D79.7010800@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <544E8D79.7010800@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.61]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/NDU6yeqgnYjjrK5LQJtxAlp-1AM
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:42:36 -0000

Lou,

I'm not aware of anything else that needs doing prior to LC. Hopefully the other authors will yell if they are :)

However, as you said earlier, it might be an idea to present the changes that we've made since Toronto before we go to LC.

Cheers

Matt

> Matt/Authors,
>     Much thanks, I think this rev addresses my comments.  Do you have any
> outstanding actions/plans on the draft or do you believe it is now ready
> for LC?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lou
> 
> On 10/27/2014 2:14 PM, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote:
> > Lou,
> >
> > v-09 has just gone out. I think we've covered all the outstanding
> > comments from you - please let us know if that's not the case :)
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >> Oscar,
> >>     Much thanks.  I expect that your next version (which addresses
> >> these and any other comments, perhaps even before HI) will be ready
> >> for LC. It probably would be good to review the changes with the WG
> >> in HI, particularly the completely new section 1.1. to ensure
> >> consensus  -- perhaps even just 1 or 2 slides.
> >>
> >> Lou
> >>
> >> On 10/23/2014 12:19 PM, OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS wrote:
> >>> Dear Lou,
> >>>
> >>>         Thank you very much for the comments.
> >>>
> >>>         We had some changes in
> >>> draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07 ready since a couple of
> >>> weeks ago that we did not find time to put together and complete. We
> >>> have just sent this version. Some of your comments seems are already
> >>> taken
> >> into account in this version. Summarizing:
> >>>         - Avoiding RFC 2119 language in lower case: done! In fact,
> >>> it has been reviewed that all RFC 2119 keywords are used as they are
> >> supposed to.
> >>>         - Section is missing handling of RRO too big: To be added in
> >> next version
> >>>         - Text for multiple IDs: A sentence indicating multiple SRLG
> >>> Ids can be present added. Still need to add a text explaining  the
> >>> conditions to include multiple Ids. However, I think the conditions
> >>> fit better in the procedure section.
> >>>         - Reference for CPS: Done! Added a whole paragraph
> >>> explaining the collection with CPS, and reference added.
> >>>         - Removing policy processing in the resv. To be added in the
> >> next version.
> >>>
> >>>         I hope we can be soon in Last Call..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>         Óscar
> >>>
> >>> El 23/10/14 00:07, "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net> escribió:
> >>>
> >>>> Authors,
> >>>>       I think we still have some unresolved comments from May:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> - you use "should not" in lower case in a few spots in this
> section.
> >>>>>>  While I think your usage *is* correct, my experience is that
> >>>>>> someone  (probably in the IESG) will tell you that these need to
> >>>>>> be in upper  case at some point.  Of course, they'll be wrong,
> >>>>>> and this will have  to be explained.  I suggest avoiding 2119
> >>>>>> language in lower case where  easily avoided.  How about s/should
> >>>>>> not be/is not to be
> >>>> The above comment also applies to "must".
> >>>>
> >>>> Your current of 2119 language is a bit inconsistent. I think you
> >>>> should review current uses of 2119 language and ensure that such
> >>>> usage is limited to (protocol) mechanisms, behavior and
> >>>> interoperability.  If doesn't the language is most likely
> >>>> informative in nature and should avoid 2119 conformance language.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> - The section is missing handling of RRO to big. Perhaps add it
> >>>>>> at ~line  330.
> >>>> A few of new comments:
> >>>>
> >>>> - The current text of section 4.1 could be read as only one ID may
> >>>> be present in the SO.  you should explain under what conditions
> >>>> multiple IDs are to be added.
> >>>>
> >>>> -  Please provide a reference for "Confidential Path message.
> >>>> Segment (CPS)"
> >>>>
> >>>> - (should have caught this one before, i.e., is in old text) In
> >>>> Section
> >>>> 5.1 it looks like you are applying policy on both Path and Resv
> >>>> processing ("When a node receives a Resv message ... if local
> >>>> policy determines ...). Given the "SRLG Recording Rejected" PathErr
> >>>> required earlier in the section, is this really needed?  Are you
> >>>> assuming separate upstream/downstream policies?  (Which would seem
> >>>> to be
> >>>> overkill.) Covering a policy change race condition, something else?
> >>>> I suspect the policy processing text on resv isn't needed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Lou
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> CCAMP mailing list
> >>>> CCAMP@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su
> >>> destinatario,
> >> puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso
> >> exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el
> >> destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura,
> >> utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar
> >> prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este
> >> mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por
> >> esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.
> >>> The information contained in this transmission is privileged and
> >> confidential information intended only for the use of the individual
> >> or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
> >> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> >> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
> >> If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it.
> >> Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
> >> communication in error and then delete it.
> >>> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu
> >>> destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e
> >>> é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é
> >>> vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a
> >>> leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode
> >>> estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta
> >>> mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por
> >>> esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CCAMP mailing list
> >> CCAMP@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp