Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-08

Francesca Palombini <> Fri, 13 September 2019 07:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4181200BA; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TnuUH4MWoO3l; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A344912004D; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901;; cv=none; b=Fl7gO5yX7XdOHVFu+mTw72VWioo1p6ZVfYpeGhjmGSy01oaN4e9lwv3mgetorM3pgw8nKW6WVVcbkNLXAVa2kWiRDImb0IWvMGathnrwv3dBjBs+wIFsjBtN6d2kxDuivyed8AkaBcqymSrXWl80U13uwHM/RSP+A5RbsPzfuili1BU9KdeUU0eCPIMpthqZWLWZZdNcK3zUd1bQw4/cAz9OCYkJ4s3M/Mm3r2PsPykP1g12Crw88ks1wCY4HCRF4SVvfdHPpLtZ42rvsnhPAQ1wr5kaBNZUNP5oB+6IGyBit+eX0JZgY1wkUoT66JkzgGEFVaChjrANt4LtReYVAg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=/IYKYJlihEdgnZd1gI2RMQXrs/Q/FYnQiTCAPndHRwk=; b=Sv8H6DHWBL5wkYZyNG3QTKgQ2VquxNEEAMlFUqBhtM5+IObWkovUR3j/w4YfAsXJLN0W+dD5VDFfkS+y4LfE4XofYCggCWYf2OyOI5wWNNqCrqYrGs9N7taXMdJTz/Iw2Ok8EUmXAPpSFqkdacwOIShduE8d7QcZOn7xs3EZOUE1it9CGXKV2npl3/0s5BjBPeMv7K1WngiQlc9y2XjSgglhLmAEu6vUiY6lUTk8KKIUX8S50tvc2dB/DHpJBG6a/ltivYj/MZsh07A6v4n1Fu/uT5D7CITIa/+U8vT3eO3s/D/g4cd/MQX5r5Fpf78lcV0X2787xzW20kfdMWW/yA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; 1; spf=pass; dmarc=pass action=none; dkim=pass; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=/IYKYJlihEdgnZd1gI2RMQXrs/Q/FYnQiTCAPndHRwk=; b=kFZHvRmnN15US06gA18RFZeBrpQMWTMHig5H4L9No4EDz2evJNjjRWKJe40EJOX7zdGw/Ksh26K4C3YigTidwnZQNfTEd63ZcdptesKXskntiSCNm5aXyH9wCS8YxwWZpxI1bYlqway3PBBu5f1F0YvNQuUwQfInmZKaE+iIRaY=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2263.10; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:00:35 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::69ac:4f28:cd6a:6302]) by ([fe80::69ac:4f28:cd6a:6302%11]) with mapi id 15.20.2263.016; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:00:35 +0000
From: Francesca Palombini <>
To: Dhruv Dhody <>
CC: General Area Review Team <>, "" <>, "" <>, " Discussion" <>
Subject: Re: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-08
Thread-Topic: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-08
Thread-Index: AQHVZJgCPIMQGKtzVUGn3Sf9A9xxvqcpWjcA
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:00:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: bf3c4bfd-5ada-4116-173b-08d738181358
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600166)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2362;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR0701MB2362:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0159AC2B97
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(396003)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(189003)(199004)(51914003)(6506007)(71200400001)(71190400001)(53546011)(14454004)(8676002)(7736002)(66066001)(486006)(2906002)(446003)(102836004)(26005)(478600001)(11346002)(186003)(14444005)(256004)(86362001)(66946007)(81166006)(81156014)(316002)(305945005)(76116006)(6116002)(36756003)(4326008)(53936002)(99286004)(25786009)(8936002)(54906003)(6916009)(64756008)(66556008)(66446008)(66476007)(5660300002)(6512007)(6306002)(44832011)(2616005)(476003)(33656002)(6436002)(76176011)(6246003)(3846002)(6486002)(229853002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2362;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: ix05MP8ox0Wc2HXmrLlrWVZMgKMxR3GQ+LgB2crCV1+dMFlMLQHOnVwULFRIqfJB4E0tgzaRvpGMKW3d8G2a6nQkHpAdB30CaBAgMLKQFiTsebk7upNyEvUcZoVonZ/xzaKe+i2yfrhIHEfEouim+6l4TvkxWBaoPhj2B6zFphUeL+OHMXQ6GbQo9iq4SL9TeyK5D3yo+jXYLCD76AU0QlCbX9geyIzpQKNaQXlw+QRWrd7K/YPcU/teIuEt1PFyab5ej20lAlYDOJ6F9aBI96Z/jLUCgHCZlDrH0Ql6bU7D2LjClzKHGvqTlkzxLLOdysRDsMG/B7c7XKyyh60322HtGf2iWA2/FYf8vGrVA1HNCIgNOzeMKEZC+quSVBWaqev7OtfNVgM3mgde4cgBLDNynowEr9qa3Fe/pyxnP1c=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bf3c4bfd-5ada-4116-173b-08d738181358
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Sep 2019 07:00:35.0135 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ZHHTBimi90+IJAdOJ18WHKp/LKkxK9g29RH3wpiHLwEDUNSi3QZtBocOMmCwgQytSv0vbypJLzEWNP0ZOMaZIWQibaeHQqCWpFY2jqil5lGNFYJ5piLtDToHFdZTcqZY
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0701MB2362
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 07:00:42 -0000

Hi Dhruv,

Yes, that looks good to me, I agree with the changes and I'm fine with letting the RFC editor figure the last nit out. Thanks!


On 06/09/2019, 11:46, "Dhruv Dhody" <> wrote:

    Hi Francesca,
    Thanks for your review. Few thoughts...
    On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:44 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker
    <> wrote:
    > Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
    > Review result: Ready with Issues
    > 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
    > <>.
    > Document: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-08
    > Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
    > Review Date: 2019-08-26
    > IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-28
    > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
    > Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication, but has minor issues/open
    > points that should be fixed before publication.
    > Major issues: N/A
    > Minor issues / questions:
    > * Section 3: At the end of season 3, you indicate that this new flag has no
    > meaning in PCRpt and PCInitiate messages. RFC8231 defines that the SRP Object
    > MAY be carried in PCErr as well, shouldn't there be such requirements (MUST be
    > set to 0, MUST be ignored on reception) for PCErr?
    I agree. I suggest to make this generic, something like - "The C Flag
    has no meaning in other PCEP messages that carry SRP object and the
    flag MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt."
    > * In the following text (Section 4): "The PCE SHOULD NOT
    >    send control request for LSP which is already delegated to the PCE,
    >    i.e. if the D Flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C Flag SHOULD
    >    NOT be set." Why is there a SHOULD NOT instead of MUST NOT? In which
    >    situation could it be acceptable or useful to request control for a
    >    delegated LSP?
    It wont be useful, but if received it would be silently ignored. It
    does not rise up to a high level of error and I suspect that is why
    authors used SHOULD.
    > Nits/editorial comments:
    Thanks for these, just one comment ...
    > * Terminology should also include a sentence about the reader being familiar
    > with at least RFC8231.
    > * Terminology could also include what SRP stand for.
    > * Section 3. When introducing SRP, it would have been helpful to the reader to
    > reference section 7.2 of RFC8231.
    > * Section 3. "PCE sets the C Flag to 1 to indicate that, it wishes" -- remove
    > ","
    > * Section 3. "MUST be ignored on receipt" -- "MUST be ignored on reception"
    I have noticed 'on receipt' in many of our documents. We should leave
    this one for the RFC-EDITOR maybe...
    > * Section 4. When introducing the D flag, it would have been helpful to the
    > reader to reference section 7.3 of RFC8231.
    > * Section 4. "Note that, the PCUpd message with C Flag set is received" --
    > "Note that, if the PCUpd message with C Flag set is received"
    > (Please keep my address in the To: field if you want to make sure I see any
    > response to this thread)
    > Thanks,
    > Francesca
    Thanks again for your review.