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

[OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]> 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
>[e-mail]
>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