Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Thu, 31 August 2017 06:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@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 4B91A13218F; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 UsiF13_j7AxC; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57BDB1321BF; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DNQ54449; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:30:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.47) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 07:30:02 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.198]) by BLREML408-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.47]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 11:59:51 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W1BjZV0gTWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZCdzIE5vIE9iamVjdGlvbiBvbiBkcmFm?= =?utf-8?Q?t-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03:_(with_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHTHakDwGPtsWAsSUu7fBVCh22MMqKd85Ew
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:29:51 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBD605@blreml501-mbx>
References: <150366896030.19613.18267092586923572032.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <150366896030.19613.18267092586923572032.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.59A7ACED.0112, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 00f931f47e5b1b78c3c5a2b2084284bf
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/PS_qnOpXg0TECpvubRtEhJabSvU>
Subject: Re: [Pce] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-pce-rfc6006bis-03=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 31 Aug 2017 06:30:17 -0000

Hi Mirja, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind
> Sent: 25 August 2017 19:19
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;
> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-
> rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: 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-rfc6006bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I could be helpful, also for implementors to update their code, to more
> explicitly spell out what the changes are (in the intro) instead of just
> listing the errata numbers.
> 
> 
[[Dhruv Dhody]] I have updated the Appendix, and added a reference in the Introduction. 

Appendix A. Summary of the all Changes from RFC 6006

   o Updated the text to use the term "PCC" instead of "user" while
   describing the encoding rules in section 3.10. 

   o Updated the example in figure 7 to explicitly include the RP
   object.

   o Corrected the description of F-bit in the RP object in section
   3.13, as per the errata ID 3836.

   o Corrected the description of fragmentation procedure for the
   response in section 3.13.2, as per the errata ID 3819.  

   o Corrected the Error-Type in section 3.15 for fragmentation, as per
   the errata ID 3830. 

   o Updated the references for OSPF Router Information Link State
   Advertisement (LSA) [RFC7770] and PCEP-MIB [RFC7420]. 

   o Add updated information and references for PCEP YANG [I-D.ietf-pce-
   pcep-yang] and PCEPS [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps].

   o Updated IANA considerations to mark code-point 0 as reserved for
   the object type defined in this document, as per the errata ID 4956.
   IANA references are also updated to point to this document. 

Appendix A.1 RBNF Changes from RFC 6006

   o Update to RBNF for Request message format: 

      * Update to the request message to allow for the bundling of
      multiple path computation requests within a single Path
      Computation Request (PCReq) message.

      * Addition of <svec-list> in PCReq message. This object was missed
      in [RFC6006].

      * Addition of BNC object in PCReq message. This object is required
      to support P2MP. It shares the same format as Include Route Object
      (IRO) but it is a different object. 

      * Update to the <RRO-List> format, to also allow Secondary Record
      Route object (SRRO). This object was missed in [RFC6006].

      * Removed the BANDWIDTH Object followed by Record Route Object
      (RRO) from <RRO-List>. As BANDWIDTH object doesn't need to follow
      for each RRO in the <RRO-List>, there already exist BANDWIDTH
      object follow <RRO-List> and is backward compatible with
      [RFC5440].

      * Update to the <end-point-rro-pair-list>, to allow optional
      BANDWIDTH object only if <RRO-List> is included. 

      * Errata ID: 4867

   o Update the RBNF for Reply message format:

      * Update to the reply message to allow for bundling of multiple
      path computation replies within a single Path Computation Reply
      (PCRep) message.

      * Addition of the UNREACH-DESTINATION in PCRep message. This
      object was missed in [RFC6006].

      * Errata ID: 4868

Hope this works? 

Thanks for your review. 

Regards,
Dhruv

> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce