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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro,

Please see inline...

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 1:00 AM Alvaro Retana via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Retana 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) s/before hand/beforehand/g
>

Ack.

> (2) §5: "Start-Assoc-ID...The values 0 and 0xffff MUST NOT be used."  What
> should the receiver do if they are?
>

Section 5.1 includes -

   If the
   Start-Assoc-ID or Range are set incorrectly, the PCEP session MUST be
   rejected with error type 1 and error value 1 (PCEP session
   establishment failure / Reception of an invalid Open message).

But I can make this clearer right here.

> (3) §5: "Range...it MUST be such that (Start-Assoc-ID + Range) do not cross the
> association identifier range of 0xffff."  What should the receiver do if it
> does?
>

See above.

> (4) s/is OPTIONAL and MAY/MAY/g   OPTIONAL = MAY
>

Ack.

> (5) §9.2: "An implementation SHOULD allow...Further implementation SHOULD
> allow... To serve this purpose, the PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
> includes association groups."  If I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang is the mechanism that
> addresses these Normative statements, then it should be a Normative reference.
> I think that it is not necessary to point at I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang in this
> document.
>

I reworded this to -

   The PCEP YANG module is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. In
   future, this YANG module should be extended or augmented to provide
   the following additional information relating to association groups.

   An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the associations
   configured or created dynamically.  Further implementation SHOULD
   allow to view associations reported by each peer, and the current set
   of LSPs in the association.


But retained the informational reference. Hope this is okay?

> (6) RFC8126 should be a Normative reference.
>
>

Ack.

Thanks for your review.

Working Copy - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10.txt
Diff - https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10.txt

Thanks!
Dhruv