Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)

julien.meuric@orange.com Fri, 26 March 2021 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.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 2B63D3A2063; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 07:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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=orange.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 Tbg_q3piYvil; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 07:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (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 47D3D3A2061; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 07:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfedar21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4F6Q320P4zz7tN5; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:53:50 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1616770430; bh=kEUH7CTGHzq7NmFOf3OGtCGlgiZHgySN9msaJYN39eo=; h=Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DqwgkF0U8JgemgiV6fQ58bIlet4pyg4e+ch/4PzjiRcmyCC5jgAHL0jIVSlhimDrZ t1X11GnseHr2n7cjG3p2bCwh7vsaIEvnOhRlwwEZceEEa64SsqhX12EpRo4SC0Dze4 7lSvm3bNp/niZY0nfvyJ9GAwWl29ULo9AOa+C+dRdWAMjcfNWSncPVaK+3Yq6oRMGn U3DI4Yg2/YGXuar1UyL+vL/sYL188XJZXCVKMPmWvjd316JbUEITaPV8exVo1TlA7F pGCkHOqzqs8ZEU3fZKE6lC8NQCMU/mGRIkRAMLc+WFZiqdUCTAKhVBDEu9ZWsJ6qn+ 0uzXyhMIMIrnA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfedar00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4F6Q316TqWzCqk7; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:53:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.192.148.54] (10.114.13.245) by exchange-eme6.itn.ftgroup (10.114.13.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.498.0; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:53:49 +0100
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
CC: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org>
References: <7010_1616065722_605334BA_7010_19_1_3f1d8d24-af98-f962-95ea-0e6ec46b738c@orange.com> <AM7PR07MB6248175F187B17CA73FFA83FA0659@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Organization: Orange
Message-ID: <31ead53f-b263-c7b6-0f88-36736f7735f4@orange.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:53:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB6248175F187B17CA73FFA83FA0659@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms020102040506020900030202"
X-Originating-IP: [10.114.13.245]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/43l8GXYqzfWDgitmfvQH7Q4AEu4>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
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: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:53:58 -0000

Hi Tom,

As agreed with the authors, we'll proceed with the early allocation
request by leaving the error codes pending upcoming updates (i.e.
request allocation for PCEP TLV and LSP object flags). This will leave
you some time to find an agreement on the final wording of the error
messages.

Thank you for your careful review,

Dhruv & Julien


On 22/03/2021 13:14, tom petch wrote:
> <tp>
> I am unclear how much is being requested of IANA here but ..
>
> s.11.1.1 starts the registry at zero which is consistent with the rest of the I-D.  Is there any need to reserve the value of zero as something special?  Probably not but something to consider
>
> TBD4 and TBD5 have almost identical Error-value which I think unhelpful.  The wording should be more distinctive IMHO.  If this is part of the Early Allocation request, then it is better to fix it now rather than getting into IANA in this form. Perhaps
> 'Unable to amend the..
> 'Unable to allocate a..
> And along with TBD2  and TBD6, as in my separate e-mail, I find 'Binding label/SID' clumsy and would prefer a replacement such as 'Binding value'
>
> Tom Petch