Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Brian!
Thanks Pavan!

Happy Diwali :)



On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
> On 13/11/2015 18:25, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
> > Brian, Hi!
> >
> > Please see inline (prefixed [VPB])
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Pavan (as the Document Shepherd)
> >
> > Subject: Re: Gen-ART telechat review of
> draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03
> >
> > ​
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Thanks for your review and sorry for the delay in the reply [ Diwali
> festivities in these neck of woods :) ]
>
> Ah, finally a valid excuse :-). Actually the public Diwali celebration in
> Auckland, where I
> live, was a couple of weeks ago so I didn't think of this.
>
> > Please see inline...
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > 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 wait for direction from your
> > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> >
> > For more information, please see the FAQ at
> > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03.txt
> > Reviewer:
> > ​​
> > Brian Carpenter
> > Review Date: 2015-11-13
> > IETF LC End Date: 2015-11-09
> > IESG Telechat date: 2015-11-19
> >
> > Summary: Ready with issues
> > --------
> >
> > Comment:
> > --------
> >
> > I haven't seen a response to my Last Call review, so this is the same.
> >
> > Needs to be approved along with draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence.
> >
> > ​​[Dhruv]: Agreed​
> >
> >
> > Major Issues:
> > -------------
> >
> >> 3.2.1.  Autonomous system
> >>
> >>   [RFC3209] already defines 2-Byte AS number.
> >>
> >>   To support 4-Byte AS numbers as per [RFC6793], the following
> >>   subobject is defined:
> >>
> >>      0                   1                   2                   3
> >>      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>     |L|    Type     |     Length    |         Reserved              |
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>     |                          AS-ID (4 bytes)                      |
> >>     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >
> > I don't understand why that is considered Experimental. It seems like
> > a major defect in RFC 3209 that needs to be fixed on the standards
> > track as soon as possible, independently of the present draft.
> >
> > ​
> > [Dhruv]: This was suggested in the TEAS mailing list and it was decided
> that WG can revisit if/when usage warrants​ ​to move this to standards
> track.
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/TV3X9BVc9mGW4lXWr-C0-sziCQE
> >
> > There were no objections to this approach.
> >
> > [VPB] As Dhruv pointed out, the WG did consider (link above) having the
> AS-ID specific extension discussed under standards track. But there wasn’t
> any interest shown by the WG for doing it at this point. This lack of
> interest could be perceived as an indication that there are currently no
> RSVP-TE deployments that use an AS-ID in the ERO. The decision by the WG
> was to revisit this discussion-point if/when there is some interest from
> the community to use the AS-ID in the ERO.
>
> OK, that is a good explanation. So let's leave that in the hands of the
> IESG.
>
> > Minor Issues:
> > -------------
> >
> > It would be nice to see a suggested timescale for the experiment in
> section 1.1.
> > How many years before this document should be evaluated?
> >
> >
> > [Dhruv]:​ ​We can add -
> >
> > The experiment will end two years after the RFC is published.
> > At that point, the RFC authors will attempt to determine how
> > widely this has been implemented and​ deployed.
>
> That would be fine, in my opinion.
>
> Thanks
>     Brian
>
> >
> > Thanks for your reviews!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dhruv
> >
>
>