Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 18 September 2019 19:12 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 487D5120128; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=Ewxf2DTw; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=KpGUCJQz
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 xt0vsSiJ2WxH; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABB5212012C; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8333213BD; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:12:00 -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=fm1; bh=7 0rtMltCfj1jRyEZcdCkfepzK9Y6W8pYzF0Jn+GfG2Q=; b=Ewxf2DTweIhLlzsvk MkvgNpTu9e0JbP/tB0GehdbZkBhH+3HsodTFMP8xutPJEE3Ry6U4du3NPuuXaYBO liGBSlc7L6loc2Oz81dfwudNtakACOTQdHSmpgOtQrI6Ed1BkXuhbiwQ0HR1yjkX 11EtMYwh0za3Y+jAQX0nLww1RAd8H/uTFAJOk9LTUgmqxgCgJEA63VOuPt0xuxS5 AoxWuEk4jCcznlCVw5NzzdjLhEi0/X7xZQS2XzgczsAWUuqh3lg+s4U5JclSaZE9 OoU4SAuED09SCuz/62f8jOvs23tdTe9YZn5mphtuIUNk7uXl7OxeVhaSZvsM8AFv yodwA==
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=fm3; bh=70rtMltCfj1jRyEZcdCkfepzK9Y6W8pYzF0Jn+GfG 2Q=; b=KpGUCJQz13rMWPEzB/1nCqgaNSwM4tklP8Ujm1in+fARzFaqynWW5g1+8 CoGrP8E+fUUDcoz/hI40LNBQ6MmeA1FdW8MXAGFStCOvMYO/t1LGZJs1zLjMU0Uz X4MDnz9bB+Dq8kD9NLbDS8pw1/95Eb0USFTPmM7uXAcCPN/n8/EkFI9gYTcNhLrY Y4ir5HXLlmPrQSxhFcMjlLte0pyp8o3i0rRUQ9eIWLSB4C0fv2wzdeZ1s3V+fF3e MIcBy3TbIKNBO92KenT24T3d9MJ0xYGwm/0tqt4dnhAOYAdUGv/DaWh3HtC+UTAD i43bXVkozx9WKaDRkM3ZoPcWE/qSA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:gIGCXT08riDzRfNPSPKjBtRoltEr0O096iT7DFnSJyPFuK1ZiZk5AQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudekgddufeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomheptehlihhs shgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucffohhmrg hinhepghhithhhuhgsuhhsvghrtghonhhtvghnthdrtghomhdpghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhm pdhivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrdelfeenucfrrghrrghmpe hmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhushhtvghr ufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:gIGCXSMFRiXVmXSXqmcGtkwN2qRhsdex_EZtQZLw9WnXKya2_aZBPA> <xmx:gIGCXbW25mS-kV6-MKpSYuMIqzufU-ox9DgEA8proGz-Rxu03onuWg> <xmx:gIGCXfYIBVDoyvNSsuLIeyEh2ZdRX8ELXTaRqHynVaUgrakUiEyr9Q> <xmx:gIGCXRriSMhKNcI-6HV5n5wfWetGmXm3X5c0m64UUspCnPud7q9PwQ>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.93]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C1FAE80064; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:11:59 -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: <904a88e9-440f-ba77-cab0-b06e071ec172@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:11:57 -0400
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce.all@ietf.org, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <14028402-EA9C-4C3F-8199-54D33893739C@cooperw.in>
References: <8bc6f14c-3c4b-9d00-e920-4bebf4c58f15@alum.mit.edu> <CAB75xn4APq=Cr3fSNz_W7C1zEd7bga3vMvK8=cKLivhPmVBCpg@mail.gmail.com> <904a88e9-440f-ba77-cab0-b06e071ec172@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/xBT1vajtuSA9a8CR-zvAEETYZ4Y>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11
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: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 19:12:04 -0000
Paul, thanks for your review. Dhruv, thanks for the updates. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Aug 21, 2019, at 1:12 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > Dhruv, > > Thanks for addressing my concerns. > > Regarding (C-E / E-C) and (EC-EP / EP-EC): I recognized that there was more to it, and that using "E" for P-PCE in this document would be problematic. I guess this is just a conflict between documents that has to be tolerated. > > And it hadn't dawned on me that the linking issues were artifacts of the automatic generation mechanism. > > Thanks, > Paul > > On 8/21/19 7:26 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: >> Hi Paul, >> Thanks for your review, please see inline... >> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> 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 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-stateful-hpce-11 >>> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat >>> Review Date: 2019-08-20 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-28 >>> IESG Telechat date: ? >>> >>> Summary: >>> >>> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should >>> be fixed before publication. >>> >>> Issues: >>> >>> Major: 0 >>> Minor: 0 >>> Nits: 7 >>> >>> 1) NIT: No glossary >>> >>> Since I am not familiar with the subject domain, when I started reading >>> this document I felt I was lost among the acronyms. While you are good >>> at defining these at first use, I couldn't keep them all in mind as I >>> read. I had to create my own glossary to support me while reading. I >>> would really appreciate having a glossary in the document. >>> >> Added. >>> 2) NIT: Inconsistent terminology >>> >>> In section 3 two pairs of terms are introduced: (C-E / E-C) and (EC-EP / >>> EP-EC). IIUC in the first pair "E" stands for "PCE" while in the second >>> pair "E" seems to stand for "Extended", while "P" stands for PCE. I >>> found this very confusing. I think it would be better to allow "E" to >>> mean the same thing in both pairs. Perhaps you could use "X" to stand >>> for "eXtended". Then there would be clear parallels: >>> >>> C -> XC >>> E -> XE >>> >>> Please consider doing something relieve the confusion. >>> >> The use of notation C-E and E-C is as per RFC 8231 >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8231#section-4 where PCC to PCE is >> (C-E) and PCE to PCC is (E-C). In this document we wanted to represent >> messages between C-PCE (child PCE) to P-PCE (parent PCE) and we used >> EC-EP for it and the reverse EP-EC for P-PCE to C-PCE communication. >> This was discussed during shepherd review as well (as we were using CE >> and PE before but that was causing confusion because of the well known >> meaning of those terms in routing). >> I would like to keep the existing notations that has WG support. >>> 3) NIT: Badly formed sentence >>> >>> I can't parse this sentence in section 3.1: >>> >>> Procedures as described in [RFC6805] are applied and where the >>> ingress C-PCE (Child PCE), triggers a path computation request for >>> the LER in the domain where the LSP originates, sends a request to >>> the P-PCE. >>> >>> Can you rephrase it? >>> >> Updated. >>> 4) NIT: Unclear text >>> >>> In section 3.1 are steps A/B/C/D to be added at the *end*, after step >>> 11? It would help to be explicit. >>> >>> In step (C) of section 3.2, can you please be explicit about which node >>> is to execute these elements? I think it is PCE5, but I'm not certain. >>> >> Updated. >>> 5) NIT: Unlinked references >>> >>> Some RFC references (e.g. [RFC8051] and [RFC8231] in section 1.1, and >>> [RFC8232] in section 3.1) are not linked in the HTML version. I suggest >>> a global search for all such unlinked references in the source. >>> >> The HTML version of the draft is automatically generated from the text >> version. The `rfcmarkup` is used to render the HTML of the I-D/sRFCs. >> Specifically, rfcmarkup produces the final HTML using heuristics from >> the source TXT and this is beyond the control of the authors. >>> 6) NIT: Bad reference link >>> >>> In the following from section 3.1: >>> >>> Steps 1 to 11 are exactly as described in section 4.6.2 (Hierarchical >>> PCE End-to-End Path Computation Procedure) of [RFC6805], the >>> >>> the "section 4.6.2" is linked to the non-existent section 4.6.2 of >>> *this* document rather than RFC6805. >>> >>> A similar link to the same spot in section 3.2 is ok. >>> >> I arranged the words so that rfcmarkup works. >>> 7) NIT: Outdated references: >>> >>> IdNits reports outdated references. I trust these will be updated in due >>> course. >>> >> Updated. >> Working Copy: https://github.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-12.txt >> Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-12.txt >> Thanks! >> Dhruv > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… King, Daniel
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Alissa Cooper