Re: [Pals] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Mirja,

I would like to pick up a couple of points related to your discuss and 
comments.

On 05/07/2016 17:38, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp-08: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think the protocol specification is not complete:
>
> - What happens if none of the two S and C bits are set?
Since the text specifically states that they are mutually exclusive, 
that would be
an implementation error. I don't think that it is within the scope of 
this draft to
state what should happen when there is an implementation error.

>
> - What happens if more the one sub-TLV is present?
As Mach says later in the thread that is an allowable construct. If the TLVs
conflict with each other that is also a protocol implementation error and
out of scope of the document.

>
> Actually I think that the protocol design is more complicated than needed
> and simplifying it would resolve these error cases. But as that's not a
> DISCUSS reason, please see more detailed comments below!

The PALS WG was satisfied with the original design, which is perfectly 
viable.

As you say that is not a valid reason to issue a discuss.


>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A few questions/comments:
>
> 1) The shepherd writeup says: "An IPR discolusure has been filed and the
> WG has not remarked on this."
>      Does this mean the wg is not aware of it or it is aware and nobody
> commented?

Our standard process is to ask the authors (requiring an explicit reply 
from each)
and to ask the WG (with no reply within a certain time an implicit 
negative) if they
need to declare any IPR that has not been already declared. This was 
last done here:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pals/current/msg00621.html

When IPR is disclosed secretariat notify the WG if the draft is a WG draft.

The Chairs do not point out correctly disclosed IPR, we assume that people
will read the list or check the datatracker.

The shepherd's note indicates that as far as I am aware, no one 
expressed any concern
about the IPR disclosure, either on list or to direct to a chair.

Best regards

Stewart