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

<julien.meuric@orange.com> Thu, 15 November 2018 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F5C12D4EF for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 07:01:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.291
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=2.309, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 oSnNfd12CoO7 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 07:01:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta239.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F11BB130DC5 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 07:01:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.8]) by opfedar22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42wl1D5Wjqz2yh8 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:01:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.10]) by opfedar06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42wl1D4lfBz3wcR for <lsr@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:01:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.193.71.118] (10.168.234.2) by OPEXCLILM5C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup (10.114.31.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:01:04 +0100
To: <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <DB1A42AD-DF9E-4331-8992-5730AEF0DE07@cisco.com>
From: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Organization: Orange
Message-ID: <11985_1542294064_5BED8A30_11985_324_6_9a8baf2a-ea10-02db-7550-268f88b7a66e@orange.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:00:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB1A42AD-DF9E-4331-8992-5730AEF0DE07@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: [10.168.234.2]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/wVZ7iELBEqYzvnKwdRR8MNoN6zQ>
Subject: 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
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:01:08 -0000

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);
- 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;
- 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!);
- 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).

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.