[Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 04 February 2019 21:25 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154931555697.28947.1779621218842309882.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 13:25:56 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ABTSfC20DaM9PTjduTP_PUCFkr4>
Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: 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-wson-rwa-ext/



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

I share Benjamin's concerns about the clarity of this document, and support his
DISCUSS.   I have added some related comments below (not overlapping with his,
of Mirja's).

(1) §4.2 (Wavelength Selection TLV): "The encoding of this TLV is specified as
the Wavelength Selection Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689]."  It should be
made clear that this document is requesting a new TLV-type code to be assigned
(§8.2) for this TLV.  IOW, rfc7689 just describes the value part of the TLV...

(2) §4.3: s/MUST be able to specify a restriction/MUST specify a restriction  
I assume you really want the restriction signaled, and not just the ability to
do it...

(3) §4.3: "the PCE MUST have mechanisms to know the tunability restrictions" 
How can this be Normatively enforced?  It seems to be that the MUST is out of
place.  s/MUST/must

(4) §4.3: "the PCC MUST be able to apply additional constraints"  This sounds
like a requirement, which is immediately satisfied by the definition of the
Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV...so I think the MUST is out of place. 
s/MUST/must

(5) §4.3.2: s/wavelength restriction TLV/Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV

(6) I think that these references should be Normative: rfc5440, rfc8253.

[Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana
Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-i… Leeyoung