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

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

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.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 9EE44130FB4; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 18:02:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 QjcOjdGW3fRx; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 18:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC52C130FAB; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 18:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 239E731D363120091DB6; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 02:02:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 02:02:09 +0000
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.95]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.144]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 18:02:06 -0800
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, 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>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUvNA9Ftir3eS2aEiiTJ6N3YiRoKXTk8MA
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 02:02:05 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D0D3E53@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <154931555697.28947.1779621218842309882.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <154931555697.28947.1779621218842309882.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.123]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D0D3E53sjceml521mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/HDEeA2rcMGWg4kS0eC2mND99_Ek>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 02:02:15 -0000

Hi Alvaro,



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



Thanks & best regards,

Young



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

From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 3:26 PM

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

Subject: 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...



YL>> This is a whole TLV, not just value part. Corrected in the figure.



(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...



YL>> Agree. Forgot to update this - -will do that in the next revision. Yes, this is the restriction signaled.



(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



YL>> Agree. – will update this in the next revision.

(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



YL>> OK. Agree – will update this in the next revision.

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



YL>> Thanks. Agree to change this as well.



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



YL>> OK. Agree and will change this as well.