[Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 22 January 2020 00:20 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 4418E120018; Tue, 21 Jan 2020 16:20:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags@ietf.org, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, hari@netflix.com, pce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.116.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <157965240227.28983.6586692675642034521.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 16:20:02 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/2qO1q00279w5rzDpX0-jYBrmFfo>
Subject: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00: (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: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:20:02 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-flags-00: 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-stateful-flags/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this clear and well-written document! I just have a couple of editorial comments that probably don't even need a response. Section 4 There will remain an issue with compatibility between implementations of RFC 8231 that might set any of the unassigned flags, and current (such as [RFC8281]) and future (such as [I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-control-request]) specifications. That problem cannot be fixed in old implementations by any amount of documentation, and can only be handled for future specifications by obsoleting the Flags field and using a new technique. Fortunately, however, most implementations will have been constructed to set unused flags to zero which is consistent with the behavior described in this document. I had a little bit of trouble reading this, as I keep expecting the first sentence to be saying that there is a legitimately-allocated flag value that is set with intent to change behavior, but it doesn't really say anything specifically about a flag value getting allocated (or used). W.r.t. obsoleting Flags vs. relying on "most implementations" to be consistent with this document's recommendations, is it worth being more clear about the conclusion that this document is drawing, namely that the risk of bad interactions is sufficiently small that there is no desire to incur the cost of obsoleting/replacing the Flags field?
- [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-… Adrian Farrel