Re: [Pce] Questions on draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-09

["Ramon Casellas" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, June 16, 2010 6:32 pm, Julien Meuric wrote:

> This kind of review (...)
> already run through the IESG and is nearly RFC 5886 (...)

> - Ramon, people behind "we" and PCE'rs a large, reviews and comments are
> necessary to build and improve internet drafts: please, try to start
> sending them as soon as WG status is achieved (when the group owns the
> document) and before the end of last calls;

Julien, all

I understand the issue; We are sorry for the late feedback (at this point
in the I.D. lifetime), but we got involved in active participation in IETF
PCE standardization work very recently. Given that in our first read of
the draft we spotted some issues, we reported them, hoping that it can
still be useful (to avoid these situations, we'll check the proper
procedures in order to report such issues once an I.D. has run through the
IESG or is already an RFC).

> - authors, I think some answers from you would be useful to the community.

For what is worth, let me point out a few more.  We apologize if
most(all?) of them have already been fixed in the to-be-released rfc:

* Typo: "in term of".

* The document mixes PCC_ID_REQ and PCC_REQ_ID, the PCE IANA file seems to
set on using PCC_REQ_ID

* Since the draft cites RFC5441 (objective function) it may be worth
mentioning that PCMonReq EBNF grammar mentions OF while PCReq one does
not. Likewise it does not appear in svec lists,

* In page 17, to avoid confusion, it is worth mentioning that the G bit
refers to the MONITORING object: "In the former case, the E bit of the
PROC-TIME object MUST be set.  The G bit MUST be cleared ..."
-

Thanks

R.