Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 julien.meuric@orange.com
发送时间: 2018年11月15日 23:01
收件人: lsr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security capability support in the PCE discovery - draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00

Hi,

Contributor hat on, I take the opportunity mentioned by Acee to highlight some of the issues in the current version:
- The I-D teaches multiple time about RFC 5088 and 5089 (while 8253 is only mentioned in the introduction): the discussed mechanism has been used multiple times, there is no need to elaborate so much (see section
3.1.1 of RFC 8306 for example);
[Qin]:Good point and will following RFC8306 example to make it concise.

- Section 3 includes the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV definition: having a given specification in multiples places brings no value but may create discrepancies, please stick to the references to the aforementioned RFCs;
[Qin]: Okay.
- Section 3 tries to list the existing flag allocations: these are inaccurate (e.g. RFC 6006 has been obsoleted by RFC 8306), incomplete (e.g. RFC 8231 is missing) and inappropriate (this is the role of the IANA registry, not of every new I-D!);
[Qin]:Okay, I propose to remove these.
- Contrary to the written text, the I-D does not "extend" anything, it requests bit allocation from an existing registry; the IANA section (7) is thus key: please make it point to the relevant registry, namely "PCE Capability Flags" managed within the "OSPFv2 Parameters"
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xml#ospfv2-parameters-14).
[Qin]: Okay, fixed in the local copy.
Thanks,

Julien

On 13/11/2018 23:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior 
> to that time.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr