Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 22 February 2021 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA1A3A1FC9; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:49:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 QjLD1MZfsOnY; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:49:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf33.google.com (mail-qv1-xf33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D1573A1FC5; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:49:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf33.google.com with SMTP id q9so2910683qvo.8; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:49:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xMZnWJ3ZcMuEeTMZk6yaWZOaQi1D6TmSKBBKpiJ7gAQ=; b=HhkbXmHwjDroxgQjC9uUzD6JQHZ9N8PLvEcn8D+Lo5ExvGER749icIGFvs+apAgoDo l6099ThDm0u/+sULZJn2+bZFw4gJXnH9k/SeLMDFPl4ylnKi/aRPBCPL8egWb/Pd5Tb2 7X4/Iupad/ahzsbwSoyaEI89Zro8vAJqEssBvVAVujxs0tuyyRFaABRAHAkJlYAe9Az5 Xwko1YVEGPPMga0RouFj+KQEQcTmi1DA5ekFNyHikuNxoVs/q/SGIb39A9qahMtnoYj+ c0wnS2wKF7/SHG7kT6AleZ45PERF8JPWSIA+Ll8xLFw1REK/nhRXOK6Lyxhk3mcTdKVE U3og==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xMZnWJ3ZcMuEeTMZk6yaWZOaQi1D6TmSKBBKpiJ7gAQ=; b=k/SB10JEy9LYHnlJSFTgaw6QPUYaTx/oD3uzNgQ9UoAlMyJ93bSp61p43Sd3tUUrc3 S6NjXNcH5z5uuwW1kTuP08/BAUbNNPnXR0aMABZnxEp99P/elhL2Ph+N8ASTFFUZ+sxL Vs/nklb4QAX/ONsA/+IoYxokBKa9SCmZEGZYQSHAvXy5L39fpk7rI1T1nKHJ2FEX49+x ul4jqyeqLoBZPneog/I+U875Ez9BMixUAIlbXQEv4peFSqnmcAoxEhYJxkTvKrogmRUD 0ikIXFRCPKAXUxmY0XM1/lQ6DFl9Xcs4n05cHCW5FeZe1zrWrmNBPReY3TEBNkBsMIjH 3jtw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Lx0kBPr5eqsDZrGODykoH99dE/RQwyyQBWg2kJsTOCoOzFmZc RefxOhd9j+fz7ebJTmtdLTy6XFBD5DKuDKiBB3I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyieNz52cOLOaJchcTUxVCCpzZn+Gu2dkJ5mfe0ryZxmxDOJAys7uuWolgzVW+j4uoSX3vQ3bZnZbW3/MRxzks=
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5d46:: with SMTP id jk6mr1958904qvb.22.1614026975368; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:49:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:49:34 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB31150BFEB1CAA94B465CCDEDBF849@DM6PR11MB3115.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <161348263462.19612.3174278637388272631@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM6PR11MB31150BFEB1CAA94B465CCDEDBF849@DM6PR11MB3115.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:49:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESswme8LRv3WRWZik5=mBbR5Ufz8YC9pSP7J9tmZiY+oa=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000086593f05bbf2f0d6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/3U38m47h_fueKrMoRuv2pgQ5D4k>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 20:49:39 -0000

Rakesh:

Hi!

This new text works for me.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On February 19, 2021 at 4:39:48 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) (
rgandhi@cisco.com) wrote:

Thank you Alvaro for the review comments.



We have added a Section 3.5 - Operational Considerations in the new
revision to address the comment.



URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-13.txt
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-13



Please advise your feedback on this.



Thanks,

Rakesh





*From: *Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Alvaro Retana via
Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
*Date: *Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 8:37 AM
*To: *The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
*Cc: *draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir@ietf.org <
draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>,
pce-chairs@ietf.org <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
*Subject: *[Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on
draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: 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-bidir/



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

This document defines extensions that can be used in different modes of
operation (§3.4).  However, there is no operational guidance related to the
advantages/disadvantages or considerations of using each of them.  Are there
cases (beyond implementation support) when one mode could be preferred?  If
all
modes are supported, how should an operator choose?

I believe that the specification is incomplete without this type of
guidance,
but I am not making this point a DISCUSS hoping that it will be easy for the
authors to address.



_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce