Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)

From: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>
Sent: 26 March 2021 03:12

Hi Tom,

Many thanks for your comments. Please see my reply inline.

<tp>

Yes, on the use of zero, that was just a passing thought.

On terminology, as in my other e-mail, and as is implied in Adrian's comments, I think 
binding label/SID an unsatisfactory term, overloaded with semantics.  Elsewhere you use 'binding value ' and I see no reason not to use that throughout with an explanation up front as to what it means.

Tom Petch

Respect,
Cheng

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tom petch
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:14 PM

Separate to my other comments
________________________________________
From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of julien.meuric@orange.com <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Sent: 18 March 2021 11:08

Hi all,

This message initiates a 2-week PCE WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This WGLC will end on Thursday April 1st (no kidding).

Moreover, we have received a request from the authors for a code point allocation to support interoperability testing.

RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:

b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to handling the protocol entities defined by the code points (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described in an Internet-Draft.
c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.

If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria, or believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other reason, please send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining why. If the chairs hear no objections by Thursday, March 25th, we will kick off the "early" allocation request.

<tp>
I am unclear how much is being requested of IANA here but ..

s.11.1.1 starts the registry at zero which is consistent with the rest of the I-D.  Is there any need to reserve the value of zero as something special?  Probably not but something to consider

[Cheng] WG/existing implemntations are happy with 0; I dont see a strong reason to change that.

TBD4 and TBD5 have almost identical Error-value which I think unhelpful.  The wording should be more distinctive IMHO.  If this is part of the Early Allocation request, then it is better to fix it now rather than getting into IANA in this form. Perhaps 'Unable to amend the..
'Unable to allocate a..
And along with TBD2  and TBD6, as in my separate e-mail, I find 'Binding label/SID' clumsy and would prefer a replacement such as 'Binding value'

[Cheng] Changed to -
TBD4: Unable to allocate the specified binding value
TBD5: Unable to allocate a new binding label/SID
Thanks!

Tom Petch

Thanks,

Dhruv & Julien

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce