[Pce] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 30 October 2019 15:39 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 DA06E12002F; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 08:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity@ietf.org, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, julien.meuric@orange.com, pce@ietf.org, worley@ariadne.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.108.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Message-ID: <157244995288.32588.13686525179313133246.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 08:39:12 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QB0HgZu3ATOIRUc47kwVFa7y0RE>
Subject: [Pce] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12: (with DISCUSS and 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, 30 Oct 2019 15:39:13 -0000

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12: Discuss

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-association-diversity/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of the points from the Gen-ART review warrant discussion I think
(quoting directly from the review):

(1) 'The relationship of this mechanism with SVEC seems to be important but
is not clearly stated.  The relevant sections of the text seem to be:
section 4 para 2, section 5.3, and section 5.4 from "[RFC5440] uses
SVEC diversity flag" on.  I think that they need to be pulled into one
section.  Then it will be possible to have a good description of the
interaction with SVEC.'

(2) 'The path computation effects of the P bit are described in the "P"
item in section 5.2 and section 5.5.  But the descriptions are
unclear, or perhaps they presume that there are only two LSPs in the
group.  I think the intended meaning is that all of the LSPs in the
group with P=1 are computed first, and then with those LSPs fixed, the
LSPs in the group with P=0 are computed.  This will cause
shortest-path constraints (and other objective functions) to be
optimized on the P=1 LSPs, and those paths will not be de-optimized by
competition from the other paths.  This should probably be pulled out
of the description of the "P" in its TLV and put into a separate
paragraph.'


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please respond to the remainder of the Gen-ART review.