Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Mon, 13 May 2019 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB90C120219; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=mrKL5Jn4; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Ykt9X8Bt
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 b8UFJJKZAljR; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2AFF1201F2; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9ED52F; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:23:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 13 May 2019 13:23:09 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=Q PqgriwL19f/1SWh3LI5sELY3zi4arUmk90QwBVF1qg=; b=mrKL5Jn40xfWMM5Vq rdxc6USpb3+pMOZjtgrEN3fFBLyso2sXQqrjy6OiCtbcGGIGgDt7HmRUOO3B6uPN 7Njrq4iCCsVTXucDpkTh1nEbUDbBYMsSqMBUM0v6G4PBfAMF3UhG9P0ecZmVvdYW OOp3ewUhC4fQ4mQo8QSTkUMQ6c9o3omOVziM/Memkhb88oNsWBonohCgZ7y7QP3n z6seSnKuEIKmYCu2owkiyGWdXLJ9Oqg886B9/sc8VccFXv/Rm5GV6sYbHES3N7U+ tJmkY+qHAMG6vcQtjBCWpKMmsl0Qrwnp1iK6gsHBOF6i80O/crP2NCC83HKNS7RT Mgc7w==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=QPqgriwL19f/1SWh3LI5sELY3zi4arUmk90QwBVF1 qg=; b=Ykt9X8BtNWOz7Tn2RfBERq3fmG4+tJteQQc6Z8O0zojCR092LgvGsIZdH S4SlOhrTkTORWfOzTImYbu+rApaTVZOn9j4F3EnEWiGxhYy/GviCNvuqtSMw5gOz yT4x5wBKKIrnXVAOSajoqXApIcYUFgz6hON7zjOCie5xeYhte7pRGnn/0BrzCiZR fKL+pf27D4bVpnKrVZUft0Pqv4e9JCCnROZKLTfuDsa9Zug8pGveM7bilwqeDk8J AjbPI4SgBNGmlTakCq9SusCVtbY3t3QuJV71rP6XO170E00WiPnQR9I5FKkg7gFF P/9OaxpzwEaugjTB0wgt5oznWIwSg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:_KfZXJUcxzIeWmfdg1VZaZ611OEVFFL6-MSK-LCF9V6UEt4bG2brbA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrleeggdduuddvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqh hmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhsrgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegt ohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfe drfeekrdduudejrdekjeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegt ohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:_KfZXK66oq-xgdkor8pPI2MgDDSiRyaI0hcj6-TqppGj9pXI7C-ZcQ> <xmx:_KfZXKDUmJNsQmtTH1AMr4UHY6uW1VCdVaxOGTPToxgcaR0MkwNhQA> <xmx:_KfZXPDvVZUyJGAeWYldaQd9FvC4jQuoXDhof7HliFweqU0Gfcuv4A> <xmx:_KfZXKBUzFk0ue6Vd8PqwxVe52eJuN_6R6Ubfooi9IkbAEwhwhW3iQ>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro5.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.87]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 5B0EE10378; Mon, 13 May 2019 13:23:07 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <155523854346.29675.15877330669814773282@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 13:23:05 -0400
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions.all@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F1B3F4E8-056F-4099-AF46-BFEF69A0C7A8@cooperw.in>
References: <155523854346.29675.15877330669814773282@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/1W8KAqLGy4dz00JEB4R0Rm5nLlg>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 17:23:15 -0000

Roni, thanks for your review. I raised your point about the missing OPEN (error) case in my DISCUSS ballot. One comment below.

> On Apr 14, 2019, at 6:42 AM, Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-??
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date: 2019-04-14
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-15
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 1. In section 1.1 last bullet does it mean that you MUST NOT use H-PCEP on the
> internet?

This text is the same as what appears in RFC 7399 and I think it captures the intent clearly enough (although happy to see the authors answer your question).

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
> 2. In section 3.2.1 or section 4.1 if the originator sends PCC or PCE sends an
> open with P flag =0 can the response open be sent with a P flag =1 and if yes
> what should be the action of the originator. I did not see any text about this
> case.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 1. in section 1 "achild" should be " a child"
> 2.  Section 2.4 repeat some of the text from RFC6805 1.3.2.2 but using
> different sentence structure. Is there a reason to change the wording.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art