Re: [Pce] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-12

[Huaimo Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carlos,

    Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
    We will address them accordingly as described inline below with prefix [HC].

Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Carlos Pignataro via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2020 11:18 PM
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-12

Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Review result: Has Nits

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrac.tools.ietf.org%2Farea%2Frtg%2Ftrac%2Fwiki%2FRtgDir&amp;data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7C89cb9451d2f74f854da608d7ced8e77c%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637205303321659875&amp;sdata=6R9jure7G95HIZQDlXO%2F27mVBVwZWR27RoFvhhpfsLo%3D&amp;reserved=0

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling
Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
Intended Status: Proposed Standard

Summary:
This is a well written document, which displays iterations that improved its
quality. I have no concerns with this document.

I would point out a small set of questions and potential issues for the
author's consideration:

5.2.1.  SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLV

Can Start-Time and Duration take any value from 0 to 32-bits-of-ones?

[HC]: Good catch.
The value of 0 for Start-Time and Duration does not make any sense.
We will restrict its use. The value of 32-bits-of-ones can be used.

9.  Manageability Consideration

Could these add Default values or ranges (esp. to times, seconds, etc.)?

[HC]: Yes. We will introduce some default values.

10.  IANA Considerations

10.1.  PCEP TLV Type Indicators

For the SCHED-LSP-ATTRIBUTE and SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE, I suggest creating
Registries for the Flags: |   Flags |R|C|A| What is the future's allocation
policy for remaining Flags for example?

Actually reading later Section 10.3 I realize they are specified there. Why are
the Flags in a different section, but Opt in this section? Anyway, a nit.

[HC]: We will move it into this section.

   IANA is requested to create and maintain a new registry "Opt" under
   SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE (TLV Type: TBD2).  Initial values for the
   registry are given below.

What is the allocation policy for Unassigned?

[HC]: We will add "New values are assigned by Standards Action [RFC8126]."

     Value    Name                              Definition
     -----    ----                              ----------
      0       Reserved
      1       REPEAT-EVERY-DAY                  Section 5.2.2
      2       REPEAT-EVERY-WEEK                 Section 5.2.2
      3       REPEAT-EVERY-MONTH                Section 5.2.2
      4       REPEAT-EVERY-YEAR                 Section 5.2.2
      5       REPEAT-EVERY-REPEAT-TIME-LENGTH   Section 5.2.2
      6-14    Unassigned
      15      Reserved

What is the reason for "Section 5.2.2"? Since this are instructions for IANA,
these references are not significant without the document reference.

[HC]: We will change it to "This document".

Appendix A.  Contributor Addresses

There are more than one Contributors -- why singular?

[HC]: We will use plural.

I hope these help,

[HC]: These really help improve the quality of the document.

Carlos Pignataro.