Re: [Pce] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Mon, 21 October 2019 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.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 7FF4D1209FF; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:25:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 1Qech_R3AYEl; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (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 75399120A09; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049295.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id x9LKGtBU001832; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:25:26 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2vsjquhfpg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:25:26 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x9LKPOwC020415; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:25:25 -0400
Received: from zlp27130.vci.att.com (zlp27130.vci.att.com [135.66.87.38]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x9LKPLqC020346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:25:22 -0400
Received: from zlp27130.vci.att.com (zlp27130.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27130.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 7364A4009E86; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:25:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAG.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.151]) by zlp27130.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 5EF1A400052B; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:25:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.218]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAG.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.151]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:25:21 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Cyril Margaria <cyril.margaria@gmail.com>
CC: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions.all@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14
Thread-Index: AQHVhPGQ4B43tWcKskCxbrbpp19mP6dlxmIA///FhpA=
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:25:20 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8A3A8B1DB@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <155490045947.22938.5359257333272095316@ietfa.amsl.com> <CADOd8-uKZCQnt8mvYu2dwd3jUP1tV44u6ZRfKaF_N9d0utwPVA@mail.gmail.com> <20191021193452.GE69013@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20191021193452.GE69013@kduck.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.197.157]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-10-21_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910210194
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/J7WLLTFcTTzX-Etid0Gmh49y8ag>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 20:25:40 -0000

Hi Elwyn, Benjamin,

Much thanks for the careful review!

Ben is correct that an Informational document can be normatively referenced. There are differences in how the different working groups do references. In PCE, requirements documents are not usually normatively referenced (e.g. 5540, 8231, 8623 just to name a quick couple). Especially as with this document, a summary is provided of the terms and requirements. And the document does normatively reference more than 20 GMPLS documents which are the necessary ones for understanding implementation and the basis of the work.

Unless the authors, chairs, working group have changed their interpretation, I agree this reference is informative.

Thanks!
Deborah
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> 
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 3:35 PM
To: Cyril Margaria <cyril.margaria@gmail.com>
Cc: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>om>; gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions.all@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:48:00PM +0100, Cyril Margaria wrote:
> Thanks for the review,
> 
> a new version has been posted addressing your comments.
> Please also see inline
> 
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 13:47, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker 
> <noreply@ietf.org>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > s9.2, RFC7025: Given the references to the requirements document for 
> > this work, I would consider RFC 7025 to be normative.
> >
> > [MC] 7025 is marked as Informational, so I am not sure it should
> listed as normative.

The status (Informational/PS/etc.) of a reference is not relevant to whether the reference is properly normative or informative.  Please see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_about_groups_iesg_statements_normative-2Dinformative-2Dreferences_&d=DwIBAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=cjIGq8MdFpzTHZnHDJ7oSYY0AALP5ePN_V5HGddlfp0&s=E6DoKmUBMTYqyAGkcga-bvCVaIkfO2l4sTdxZHc11d4&e=
for further background -- if a normative reference on an Informational document is needed, the responsible AD will take care of making that work, procedurally.

-Ben