Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-10 (Dale R. Worley) Sun, 26 January 2020 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAB41200B3 for <>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 13:04:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <t16VCe7wvCkW>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Cc"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.985
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.985 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t16VCe7wvCkW for <>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 13:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DC4E120052 for <>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 13:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id vopZilQZM9yxwvp4liqzia; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 21:04:11 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20180828_2048; t=1580072651; bh=PK608k5tYarUnsRlXGObPpIiHomPIAv7i58JFli/w3U=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=hHPmunFyIck83N4EMf8Zy1g0I4XjlYJ/wHp+sHl3OzYdAMgoPGCdDbmryLkbM//eM zYi1G+v9PO0w+TlEUQz8+NejlL4NzM6MJW7Fupq/9O5o6XBf3rbCWtTH0VevlrfnOB rkeDMsE15TQOWzyrn6qYmrUHhJCOBrSvVr13hi38QtJu2VzBheY8icRTnYXB+tNNlR QOT0aVRxQ/g3kWws6zQZm8TEandlJ56S2YqYlkmLIdhVa4wSVI2/GWrj/L9FMubtP7 yLvk2euehS/XTjRl8HcaduuuULhs5zIXPsGlmmesoBULIRVcPP+sfzksSgnXuIL9/v kiLwSJlnaNQtA==
Received: from ([IPv6:2601:192:4600:c190:222:fbff:fe91:d396]) by with ESMTPA id vp4jirW9fHD5Kvp4kid9Bg; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 21:04:11 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0.00;st=legit
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 00QL49Hi027840; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:04:09 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 00QL48YC027837; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:04:08 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: worley set sender to using -f
From: (Dale R. Worley)
To: Dhruv Dhody <>
Cc: The IESG <>, Julien Meuric <>,
In-Reply-To: <> (
Sender: (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 16:04:08 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 20:40:51 -0800
Subject: Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 21:04:16 -0000

> Sections 5.4.1 and 5.5 address your comments.

> Thanks. Dale, could you take a look?

My apologies for not responding sooner.

Comparing the latest version, -13, to the one that I reviewed, -10:

Recapitulating my review, the major items were:

- Clarifying the use of the TLV; in particular that non-identical copies
  are attached to multiple LSPs.  This is substantially improved.

- The effect of multiple LSPs with P=1 within a group.  This is
  clarified.  In particular, I see that my previous understanding was

- Interaction with SVEC.  This discussion is considerably expanded.  I
  do not fully understand it (most likely because I have not read the
  SVEC specification), but it's likely that the authors have covered it
  well.  I note that the new text explains that there may be situations
  that are so complicated that the path computation can not be done.

* However, in regard to the new example:

   o  PCReq with SVEC object with link-diverse bit=1 (LSP1,LSP2) and DAG
      with L=1 (LSP1,LSP3) - link diverse paths between LSP1, LSP2,
      LSP3.  But any future change in LSP2 will have no impact.

As far as I can tell, there is a diversity constraint between LSP1 and
LSP2, and a diversity constraint between LSP1 and LSP3, but there is
none between LSP2 and LAP3 -- this is not quite the same as "link
diverse paths between LSP1, LSP2, LSP3".  In particular, LSP2 and LSP3
might be identical.

The final sentence is unclear to me (probably due to my inexperience);
is it possible to be more exact regarding the reason/manner that such a
change "will have no impact"?

These revisions reasonably resolve my concerns.