IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22: (with COMMENT)

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 02 April 2024 06:52 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 EE24CC14F60F; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 23:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I3XYYOqHdqSK; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 23:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe29.google.com (mail-vs1-xe29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19B90C14F60C; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 23:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe29.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-476665f067fso1613834137.1; Mon, 01 Apr 2024 23:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712040751; x=1712645551; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=U1+qJ3wMlcq4ut0DS91uy2gDfY4yyBr35ny8BFJQ984=; b=VDvVZ04JafeJ2jbwVIcIaeCHjY//niqSebpzykWh1xX5BkfI0u8Sxs0bCvsfb8abXP FiGHTnRHu9X/nC6iM9zPyUBOE7ESE+NrZnXxfC6drqBljtfFYd8kTPOhExnuwkiWNrPo nZJNng5YH1vq9sGMZYbkHbMNjU6UMzHoNSPtjX9E2L3ozTY6Dxk2IsVcXUs5a70dives 5xl5MA0l47k2JgDbWlmceQ5kxP1fetyy670FF2JvRwF/JJfePDrZ6byck2uoMXmxoIws mymZsIB9BPVck4aVSR4kMo+iJtLbLUJDqaG42XfK2ioajsTvBFKfxYed4JXna0C3q2Pk MLgA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712040751; x=1712645551; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=U1+qJ3wMlcq4ut0DS91uy2gDfY4yyBr35ny8BFJQ984=; b=jqCYOzPSEQMV3h6ieP8/3MFXsTFBg82MENru7PS6noW03x6Lc+lnrmW/OL616RsEYj TaYFONVVXvWpDzEo46p1dz3U4lfToXje8EL3BXyViND1Vaw9deumoTaPvis1rEMoKCyM vLEHdewKtz2o89LLF1lSCdUiBXbzM5Env++dnQ2PzjYMJjw8ujiHGFqWvo8vpP71s+Al YQFd694tjkxLUcdWwV0Wyx3mJSCEJyeQL8vTlZ4ZOlyFMEeKMA/kZC3c61fwN+IWt+vj FiVyv16gjkUQkkHfjW2YhrTFdpXu7oQfjQrSa77rxe/6K9ZW3tv2sdmYxPbPtmuhUgkn cJRg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU6m/2QYJYeDqVjP71xHLKxg+SCTPAFqaC8gemZXye03/Y2vMoF/zpcVqD8EKr+BF/IbcxBzA0q1GAVB9f/LQh8tLAxm8TQg2r6bHbZusCvYhDDVepTdAKcKOqV5CfgE/8/hqeeSHsI+ynaNnwN8pb+fRCDukTxqvk2dbrsdrbU
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyyrNVQF9wnsff73w7so+e2DeYF+LMKKuqVNbRB5fBbCB8VyTC1 jJ75GltEpgdpJNIwQUMKbSrcyv6J7vxXCtMBT3XbI97V0SclCBbrITjH8MvYoOCX71FWb3twTJt VTdPG6XgslGxwSyLTJEgWFGo28/U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH5YUJix4td3QKhMH/dNk7UmfdxuMMAKWGvN5NTFXYVhwrweR+5bHyiNhYZizBEPD80pyJb91eE9tNTtmcrBQI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:80f:b0:478:57a4:3660 with SMTP id g15-20020a056102080f00b0047857a43660mr8221134vsb.27.1712040751009; Mon, 01 Apr 2024 23:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <171197500439.37966.2137822713915824613@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <171197500439.37966.2137822713915824613@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 12:21:54 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn7X=Khi4qSeop0MfU0Dge2HUDmogCkYvF3UvTbk+r1wUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Guichard <james.n.guichard@futurewei.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6@ietf.org, hari@netflix.com, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ce17a90615178c4f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/FeTqoBAs7v8KhOArb4GXSrE0VX4>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 02 Apr 2024 06:52:36 -0000

Hi Jim,

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Jim Guichard via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for a well written document. Minor nit:
>
> Section 3.1 - 2nd Paragraph. Please review this paragraph as it seems to
> say
> that the MPLS mechanisms remain unchanged, but the text is difficult to
> parse.
> Please make the meaning clear.
>
>
Yes, I can see that. The text aimed to clarify that in the case IPv6 is
used (instead of IPv4) for SR-MPLS, the PCEP procedures are as per RFC 8664
and not this document.

How is this change ->

OLD:

   For the use of an IPv6 control plane but an MPLS data plane,
   mechanism remains the same as specified in [RFC8664].


   This document describes the extension to support SRv6 in PCEP.

NEW:

   When SR-MPLS is used with an IPv6 network, the PCEP procedures and

   mechanisms are as specified in [RFC8664].

   When SR leverages the IPv6 forwarding plane (i.e. SRv6), the PCEP

   procedures and mechanisms are extended in this document.

END

Thanks!
Dhruv



>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email