Re: [Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: (with COMMENT)

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 24 September 2019 06:12 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.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 74BEF120115; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 U36zvAC7Px93; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd29.google.com (mail-io1-xd29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (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 3E9A7120113; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd29.google.com with SMTP id q1so1632516ion.1; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QKpqqddbJ5QucEgNpj5bhmYEbrX205v4SbdXrfiCxyo=; b=iQZJvbt32QvjLj9lunXwoP/mIHezX5dwp/16GBB+ephpUjac7FMDAxplkCYCDEv163 n75Q7PRPnkAJgHQWdw+g2z+YGeedbz8kHeh4swmhkHjWj6UmYuTmOX7kKnxDV2nr80Tr SFXF7CEPGRX7gCWoWBqCiJlnbXeDzZW+iricqLtICiCZspvKo6rpy20CyWe6T7xU6eud w2sW+A6O8Ukr+bpItjWDJwgTYA02P15xIBWfJ9cPiR8kZI7JZ+5my04fy5AeOxus8tz9 PVpwWULp2D3RhY14bXkefEHZpOGiG1tQopSVmMwTG2dezdKcyd9dytbcEkW1u3jEerli kpcg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QKpqqddbJ5QucEgNpj5bhmYEbrX205v4SbdXrfiCxyo=; b=KcQUojzP3SnUte0yX8MhIHWEB2XQ65auQzN0gF6oBlCCN0t4w92Ax3YUong/laIVmv cIEkWU2BiiBadjWtekbpkfsKfKzMSETGgg6d+EwyiMWh7KK9lynO70RFS0XAi/6QcAFm a6pfRqWbw0nvApQypU2M52UVpe0jkwDFkLixckclMQpCep25KO8ldaxA/VwqKz4TwWwO Nhg6AqR2CXn+PrlarhRLH6VmIeMqnGi/gBZha0l3X2uPXus14k+JYw2f9qIF3YrM0ITk QFDEf8lt5XGka4I6Os/UVbnjeGCvG6GUkPzMh5IqSIYBGucpn0Dx5Yo+YqBtCCHQl6O6 1s+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXMQFQZEAvtL+hPRnG/ptiYuWZLwaUkSjrBdQHh2i0kLLVDwZ/B UKW6Ec0mYc61SDTJY4dbxa/nwHv0ngSaSQQCh7U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxR4WDN/jkmU50SrYO8ferh7Q2Jd7/2ZBsOtX4yDUCjNlW1Eo7E1aSAwkmQxH5P5VT+UB2oazpIwYNUYaFNNuc=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9dd4:: with SMTP id 20mr1514169ioo.1.1569305565453; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 23:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156884098570.4585.6466973426120663299.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <156884098570.4585.6466973426120663299.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 11:42:09 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn4=ptgPOOO1F=Mj5e924BqJvU5vPceadpqEN4ikuDxMJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?w4lyaWMgVnluY2tl?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection@ietf.org, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/9JFjF2HpW3EI9QDTZzw_3zmJO2A>
Subject: Re: [Pce] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?pce-stateful-path-protection-10=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
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: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 06:12:49 -0000

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your comments.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 2:39 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
<noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: 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-path-protection/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document. I am trusting the routing AD for
> their deep understanding of this document and their approval.
>
> Nevertheless, I have 2 COMMENTs which are mere questions of mine.
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> == COMMENTS ==
>
> -- Section 3.2 --
> C.1) Any reason to have a field named "unassigned flags" rather than
> "reserved"? After all, those bits could be used later for something different
> than flags. Also applicable to section 6.2.
>

The encoding is to make the full 32 bits as a flag field called "Path
Protection Association Flags (32 bits)" with IANA registry for all 32
bits. RFC 4872 also considers "PT" as flags - "LSP (Protection Type)
Flags". We expect only flags (or fields represented as flags) in this
TLV in future. In case some other data needs to be encoded we expect
another TLV to be defined for it.

> C.2) is there any reason the "P", "S" and "PT" are described right to left ?
>
>

I guess because of the order of importance, we could check with RFC
editor later in case they have a concern.

Thanks!
Dhruv