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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 2:19 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[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