[CCAMP] comments/questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 03 October 2014 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 B5D861A1BEE for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 13:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 wfieoErJ9e0k for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 13:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 108EE1A1BF2 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 13:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21208 invoked by uid 0); 3 Oct 2014 20:06:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2014 20:06:26 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id yk6E1o0092SSUrH01k6HkQ; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:06:24 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=LbyvtFvi c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=u9EReRu7m0cA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=EDIwDQaqJyODmDqy0ecA:9 a=77T_mgK8_5JlQou2:21 a=nXI_Qva4zxFcdvBP:21 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=FQUQoDuq/BRW7weX1C06DcbSPpk4ZS3qj0XERAlojVg=; b=HicBk64tNl2hcWLNjK3MZOZHbS5znLYWnXHBV15tg4mA+AgROb0Vw1olaYsHsIJmIOETiCaIqxajHoEqbFYbsDgQBYLVRXacPsdLYO2O9EiiCLdwy1xxZLscSkclUwoE;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:33978 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1Xa97H-0001uU-35; Fri, 03 Oct 2014 14:06:15 -0600
Message-ID: <542F01CD.9020709@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:06:37 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/TTCOgmjAWKxUCwAEjA1E-7_rvDg
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] comments/questions on draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro
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: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 20:06:31 -0000

Hi,
	At the last meeting it was mentioned that folks should take a look at
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-attribute-ro in anticipation of an upcoming LC.
Consequently, I took a re look at the document and have some
comments/questions (for authors/contributors/WG/...):

- You have a couple of editorial notes in the document, do these still
apply or should they be dropped.

- There are cases where you use 2114 language in lower case (e.g.,
section 3.1).  As I've mentioned before on the list, such usage, even
when correct, often leads to unneeded discussion during IESG review, I'd
suggest avoiding lower cases usage wherever possible.  That said, I
think you have some cases where upper case was intended.

- In section 3.1, 3.3 you are giving the definition for fields (length
and type) that are defined in 3209.  You should just point to that
definition rather than seeming to provide the authoritative definition
in this document.

- In section 3.2, you are similarly doing this for the Attribute TLV
defined in section 3 of 5420.  Why not just include the reference and
the (re)definition?

- Section 4. Isn't recording applicable to required  attributes as well?
I.e.,why no R bit recording in section 4.1?

- I think it would be good to have a compatibility section / discussion
which should at least discuss how to deal with the now two ways to
encode / record attribute flags. -- This document could replace
(deprecate) the old way, but this document would then need to be an
update to 5420...

- The IANA section needs to be updated with the proper format.  See
RFC5226.  draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07 is good example (but
don't include values and use the non-xml version of the registry links.)

- Section 6 won't make it through the IESG.  Again
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-07 is good example of recent
language produced by the WG, and is a fine starting point.

I think that's it.

Lou