[Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: (with COMMENT)

Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 09 July 2019 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D66D12000E; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-association-group@ietf.org, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, julien.meuric@orange.com, pce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <156270617956.15896.4447879410478869341.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 14:02:59 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/2WP3_ojsisROuPVCw6UrByrkicg>
Subject: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 21:03:00 -0000

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: No Objection

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-pce-association-group/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

thanks for this document, here are a couple of comments/questions.

   The PCEP ASSOC-Type-List TLV is optional.  It MAY be carried within
   an OPEN object sent by a PCEP speaker in an Open message to a PCEP
   peer so as to indicate the list of supported Association types.
This is said twice. (First paragraph of section 4.1) and then in 4.1.1:
   A PCEP speaker MAY include an ASSOC-Type-List TLV within an OPEN
   object in an Open message sent to a PCEP peer in order to advertise a
   set of one or more supported association types.
   The use of ASSOC-Type-List TLV is OPTIONAL.

It doesn't hurt, but you might want to consider saying this only once. Also I
note OPTIONAL vs optional

Sending ASSOC-Type-List TLV is optional but it might be mandatory to send some
to-be-defined Association types. Isn't that somehow conflicting?

The PCEP OP-CONF-ASSOC-RANGE TLV is optional.
OPTIONAL?

Could you clarify the difference between
a PCEP speaker does not recognize the ASSOCIATION object
and
a PCE peer is ... unable to process the ASSOCIATION
I see that the errors thrown are different.

Nits:
s/protections LSPs/protection LSPs/
s/The Assoc-type MAY appear more than once/A given Assoc-type MAY appear more
than once/ s/to uniquely identifying/to uniquely identify/