Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-08

"Pete Resnick" <resnick@episteme.net> Thu, 29 August 2019 15:55 UTC

From: Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection.all@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 10:55:38 -0500
Message-ID: <D80B5830-CE65-43A3-BFB4-3B7095EAA71B@episteme.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn5aTWMUy1JonEe6LSBjiG4_uYFy0rt5ea68E2mFjthUOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <156704789212.1265.12949882127746399605@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAB75xn5aTWMUy1JonEe6LSBjiG4_uYFy0rt5ea68E2mFjthUOQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/o8CufqWewUHrJ5yoE_E83BnXe9k>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-08
Precedence: list

Hi Dhruv,

On 29 Aug 2019, at 5:17, Dhruv Dhody wrote:

> Hi Pete,
>
> Thanks for your review and nits. Just snipping to two points...
>
>> OLD
>>      |   PT      |     Path Protection Association Flags         
>> |S|P|
>> NEW
>>      |   PT      |                Unassigned                     
>> |S|P|
>>
>
> I feel it is important to keep the name "flags" in the figure to match
> with the text following the figure. Also this seems to be our usual
> practice in past documents as well. We can change to just "flags" if
> you would prefer that?
>
> For context ->
>
>    The format of the Path Protection Association TLV (Figure 1) is as
>    follows:
>
>      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
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |         Type = TBD2         |              Length             |
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>      |   PT      |     Path Protection Association Flags         |S|P|
>      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
>              Figure 1: Path Protection Association TLV format
>
>    Path Protection Association Flags (32 bits) - The following flags 
> are
>    currently defined -

So this is what confused me about the diagram: "Path Protection 
Association Flags" is the entire 32-bit field, which includes PT, S, and 
P. But in the diagram, you have the unassigned 24 bits labeled "Path 
Protection Association Flags", which seems incorrect. Perhaps 
"Unassigned Flags" would be best.

>> Section 6:
>>
>> At the top of the section, I suggest putting in the following:
>>
>> [Note to RFC Editor and IANA: Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 4.5 contain 
>> "TBD1" through
>> "TBD5" those should be replaced by the values that IANA assigns. 
>> Also, Section
>> 4.5 includes several occurrences of the phrase "(Early allocation by 
>> IANA)";
>> please confirm that the value mentioned there is correct and delete 
>> that phrase
>> from the document before publication.]
>>
>
> I would suggest the authors to remove the phrase "(Early allocation by
> IANA)" in the document now as the referenced draft is in RFC-EDITOR
> queue and the early allocation tag is removed in the IANA page -
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects

That's fine too.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick http://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best

[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-p… Pete Resnick via Datatracker
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Dhruv Dhody
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Pete Resnick
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ie… Mahend Negi