Re: [Pce] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 21 June 2019 17:30 UTC
Return-Path: <rgandhi.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 0258A1200B3; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 Yk_ea6ySM7bw; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (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 4053E120041; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id v18so6657605ljh.6; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:30:06 -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; bh=stF0qPad1YgnwThdKd86UU7w/D7fz3mysrm5g2P/MN0=; b=fqZtH31jgcuw41NQGBaTiKpudA/sNJ9eVjPUUCwYknkwNqym8xZsg4AnB7wwuX13Eb 0iHshPXE2P+6j+S5zEMWUpNu95wDGL0nKut6ZGeHN30hNgw1Oupp9x6iYDUTt7+wVTAZ PIkN2wTDNO3DXBX112b1PDUWq35xyS1u4c4aMVWaoRHLr/fmpYM32fBSj7gadwSURiCu Rf9CgIdqBPEodjQTnA7oqN53FmvLcmt/JGzoDkzj9dUWIvXBVbsHq6xwe9uUIgd5JjEy hQLKuBbk0VRPkWspo6/2UcewX59oZrSkxEwNMK8kyjGv3CyOpf7zZuql68tY1GE0TI4t Tqng==
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; bh=stF0qPad1YgnwThdKd86UU7w/D7fz3mysrm5g2P/MN0=; b=i6Z6xb1ZHV72aT5iiu1hMRcmi1f8l+AIp86gSACMXAjhszPn59IgMpLUEzrMFJrcz4 M82uYpKjnc8BkkHICOW9YkEGWMCnApCdHUAQcUFwOcx3I+qDJdkfZVcC8CBHrsdrGZOG i2yH/X+p6S6/gpAdfoEUum7RkLEDbECI/HwGgNF1t8Egz08dj4kReR1wuRaUvNXMkM9u wPptRI7VWkQDF5xIgXvH7ioNDY54sy3GN8CDCq/u/yrPEGa8YNpiwAEiI9DTAwtpfoM+ 2o6SqCaGr6j1RfFTR0M4xOo5sixj+S/lvrZER9ucOtInLOTbBEYlEaYj98WvR1nXVwBn B92w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWw14vBjEbd1aQQC65pDxK5s6gF1SC/nsMCtJ+z2/UOJ+paQNml YbpJ46IHxCPp0pxwzhqPpcLlSpMmtcAGfamETMzGdmCVtmMg
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxn8qwm+oYCYzs+wlU+RQ/RAs1xAzidlhldn7FNd9a9K79NLHvvMT2mLDpFryzUs+ggAAokg/yeYuJolegtItA=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9857:: with SMTP id e23mr26161242ljj.217.1561138204374; Fri, 21 Jun 2019 10:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BL0PR02MB48683C539DEB5050782AAEA484EA0@BL0PR02MB4868.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR02MB48683C539DEB5050782AAEA484EA0@BL0PR02MB4868.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Rakesh Gandhi <rgandhi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 13:29:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZsk6c-BQ3wkY5_1PH6tGOx_6Q_iJR8RDiw38aPixJ74Q1vmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick=40metaswitch.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001dfbba058bd8d021"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/H4-kMqVi2ThZyRZ6JIZ-o3K9g04>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:30:09 -0000
Hi Jon, Thank you for the review comments. Please see inline with <RG>... On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:53 AM Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick= 40metaswitch.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi there > > > > I have reviewed this draft for the routing directorate as part of > preparing it for IETF last call and IESG review. > > > > I was familiar with this document from the time that I chaired the PCE > working group, but this was the first time I read it all the way through > and paid attention to all details. I found it easy to read and > understand. I think it is basically ready to go with a few small > clarifications and nits, below. > > > > Cheers > > Jon > > > > Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09 > > Reviewer: Jon Hardwick > > Review Date: 18 June 2019 > > IETF LC End Date: LC not started yet > > Intended Status: Standards Track > > > > Comments > > Section 3 is somewhat redundant IMO. > <RG> We can keep it given the Figure showing the extensions unless there is a preference to remove it. 4.1 you should ideally provide a reference for how to do MBB signalling. > <RG> Added [RFC3209]. 4.3 “Similarly, if a PCC gets overwhelmed due to signaling churn, it can > notify the PCE to temporarily suspend new LSP setup requests.” I think > this is covered by 5.7 as well as the PCE case, but you only refer to 5.7 > for the latter. Please point to 5.7 for both cases. > <RG> Added. 5.1 Not a big deal, but I wonder if there is any practical reason to > differentiate the final two bullets. > <RG> There is a precedence for the second bullet error message in [RFC 8231] (e.g. error-value 2). The first bullet error message just comes from the existing behaviour without this extension. 5.6 Why are AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES required (MUST) in the LSPA object of > a PCRpt? If the LSP is PCE-initiated, then the PCE already knows what > attributes were specified. If the LSP is PCC-Initiated, then the > attributes are the PCC’s business – the PCE can’t change them (per 5.5) and > I don’t think the PCE even needs to know what they are. > <RG> Agree. Removed the sentence. > 7.2 Misuses RFC 2119 language to request an action from a working group. > In other documents (when there is not already a draft in progress to do it) > we have reworded this as “the YANG / MIB could be updated” etc. > <RG> Updated the text. > > Nits > > 5: “Extensions to the PCEP” would sound better as “PCEP Extensions” > <RG> Fixed. 7: In RFC 6123 it says “The Manageability Considerations section SHOULD be > placed immediately before the Security Considerations section in any > Internet-Draft.” – but here, it comes after. > <RG> Updated. Thanks, Rakesh _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
- [Pce] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-pc… Jonathan Hardwick
- Re: [Pce] Routing directorate review of draft-iet… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [Pce] Routing directorate review of draft-iet… Jonathan Hardwick