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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

Thanks for your comments. Few thoughts...

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 2:31 AM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Roman Danyliw 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ** Section 3.2.  It took me a bit to understand that the Path Protection
> Association TLV goes in an ASSOCIATION Object per Section 6 of
> [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].  On initial reading of “[t]he Path Protection
> Association TLV is an optional TLV for use with the Path Protection Association
> Type” this relationship wasn’t clear.  I’d recommend an editorial update to
> make it clearer.  I believe this is related Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS #5 (which I
> support).
>

This is updated to "The Path Protection Association TLV is an optional
TLV for use in the ASSOCIATION Object with the Path Protection
Association Type."

> ** Section 3.2  The protection type field specifies the protection type of the
> LSP.  Section 1 notes that “one working LSP [can be associated with] one or
> more protection LSPs using the generic association mechanism.”  Assuming a case
> were multiple protection LSPs are specified, is it valid for the protections
> type to be different?
>

An explicit error text has been added to make sure LSPs within the
association group has the same Protection Type.

> ** Section 4.5.  For clarity, I would recommend being precise with the exact
> code point names when discussing conflicting combinations of protection types.
> For example, s/1+1 or 1:N/1+1 (i.e., protection type=0x08 or 0x10) or 1:N
> (i.e., protection type = 0x04) with N=1 per <insert IANA registry name>/
>

Based on Barry's comment this was simplified and now we have just two
case 1+1 and 1:N. The protection type values could be added in
brackets.

> Baring these combinations, are other any other remaining combinations of
> protection types legal given different protection LSPs in the same PPAG (e.g.,
> 0x1 + 0x2)?
>

As per RFC 4872, all "other" values are reserved.
As per Ben's comment, this was added - "Any type already defined or
that could be defined in the future for use in the RSVP-TE PROTECTION
object is acceptable in this TLV unless explicitly stated otherwise."

> ** Editorial Nits:
> -- Section 1.  s/effect/affect/
>
> -- Section 1.  Per “When the working LSPs are computed and controlled by the
> PCE, there is benefit in a mode of operation where protection LSPs are as
> well”, I couldn’t parse the second clause.
>
>

Thanks!
Dhruv