[Pce] 答复: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Zhenghaomian <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric & Dhruv,

Thank you for the review, I made the revision and attached the diffs. Please check if all resolved before it is updated☺


Best wishes,
Haomian


发件人: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2023年6月8日 12:34
收件人: Éric Vyncke <[e-mail]>
抄送: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
主题: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)


Hi,

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 2:19 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-21: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls/



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

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-07

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is very specialised and above
my expertise area.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address, do not panic
;-) ), two non-blocking COMMENT points.

Special thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Thanks Éric :)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

## Mismatch in meta-data & the content

While the meta-data is about "standard track" the I-D itself says
"informational". The IETF Last Call has been done for "standard track", so a
revised I-D is enough to address this DISCUSS.


Dhruv: Oops! In the last update -21, somehow the Intended Status changed. I should have caught that! Apologies!
IMHO it is a case of an unintentional mistake. Authors would let me know if that's not the case!


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


## Section 6.2.1

s/The TLV is extended with three flags to indicate/The specifcation add three
flags to the flag field of this TLV to indicate/

Dhruv: Your suggestion makes a lot of sense! Thanks!


## Section 9.1

Should the IANA be directed to use the MSB for this allocation ?

Dhruv: Hmm. The general practice in PCEP is to start allocation from LSB -
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#stateful-pce-capability-tlv-flag-field
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-capability-flag-field
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#h-pce-capability-tlv-flag-field
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcecc-capability

IANA would follow the usual practice in the registry as well as confirm with the authors/chairs/AD at the time of making allocation. But no harm in making it explicit by - "IANA is requested to make allocations starting from the least significant bit (31)."

Thanks!
Dhruv