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

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Thu, 07 February 2019 02:09 UTC

From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext@ietf.org>, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, "daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUvKurfcA7jtqgoUaO+cl/uTbmdaXTmXEQ
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 02:09:26 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D0D3E71@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <154929984644.28639.4945458965342250832.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <154929984644.28639.4945458965342250832.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D0D3E71sjceml521mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/CtETQ-iCcDdyBcUej_SUda6Kq0c>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Mirja,



Thanks for your comments. Please see in-line for my response to each of your comments. Please let me know if you have further comments.



Thanks & Best regards,
Young



-----Original Message-----

From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net]

Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 11:04 AM

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; daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com; pce@ietf.org

Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)



Mirja Kühlewind 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 had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add:



1) sec 4.3:

  "an Error-value (Error-value=3) MUST be defined so that the PCE MUST

   send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object. See Section 5.1 for

   the details."

This doesn't really make sense as normative "MUST"; I propose to change to lower case "must".



YL>> Agree.



2) sec 4.3:

"This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify

   multiple restrictions."

How do you know how much restrictions will be there? Based on a length field in the base protocol? Please clarify in the draft!



YL>> By the length field. I made it clear this TLV is the whole TLV (which has the length field).

3) sec 4.3.2:

"Length (16 bits): It is the length in bytes of the entire label set

   field."

What is meant by "label set field" here? Please clarify in the draft or align wording accordingly.



YL>> Yes, you are right. s/label set field/Wavelength Restriction field

4) Error value 3 is missing in sec 8.8!



YL>> Yes, I added this.

[Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-iet… Mirja Kühlewind
Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft… Leeyoung