[Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 18 September 2019 21:01 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81026120052; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection@ietf.org, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, julien.meuric@orange.com, pce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.101.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <156884048251.4597.11655493158307521478.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:01:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/I469noEirAemyCbuwS7qOsYepm0>
Subject: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 21:01:23 -0000
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). ** 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? ** 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>/ 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)? ** 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.
- [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-i… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-i… Roman Danyliw