[Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 15 May 2019 12:49 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 A860E120047; Wed, 15 May 2019 05:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions@ietf.org, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <155792454764.17625.18205220641029349549.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 05:49:07 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/UMzRJ84Y9mV4eEH5AidpkAMnAYg>
Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with 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, 15 May 2019 12:49:08 -0000
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: 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-hierarchy-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) rfc6805 should be a Normative reference; the contents reflect its importance in the definition of the extensions, and this text in the Introduction confirms it: This document defines the PCEP extensions for the purpose of implementing Hierarchical PCE procedures, which are described in [RFC6805]. [I am not balloting this point as a DISCUSS because I believe it is easy to resolve and trust the Responsible AD.] (2) The Shepherd's writeup mentions the existence of "commercial as well as open source implementations" -- these are documented in Appendix A. What code points are used in those implementation? Is the code deployed (in production)? I'm asking because all the code points (except the ones defined in this document, of course) have not been assigned by IANA...and have to wonder about potential collision (or even squatting). [I realize the Authors may not have an answer available...it would be very nice if someone (Authors/Shepherd/Chair/AD/anyone) would check. There might be nothing to worry about; better safe than sorry.] (3) §3.2.2: It is not clear to me whether the Domain Type is a bit field (one per type), or if there are 256 possible types. Please clarify. (4) Related to the last point... §7.3 doesn't list which range is unassigned...nor whether the value 0 (assuming it is not a bit field) is available to assignment or not. (5) Please add a reference for PCEP-LS? (6) [nit] s/achild/a child (7) [nit] §3.2.1.1: The first paragraph is missing the closing ".
- [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Alvaro Retana via Datatracker
- Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-i… Dhruv Dhody