Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 28 March 2017 22:18 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC29212968A for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TlomRGMRl0zG for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 344C2129677 for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2SMICYW022445; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:18:13 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-8535.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.133.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v2SMIAnW022400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:18:11 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Jonathan Hardwick' <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>, pce@ietf.org
References: <BY2PR0201MB191090B5292E1309C1FFAD5C84200@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR0201MB191090B5292E1309C1FFAD5C84200@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:18:10 +0100
Message-ID: <02be01d2a811$30babae0$923030a0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02BF_01D2A819.9282A550"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKCqq4K0ytLtKzQnxfPKdNtt4uUoqBKzIYg
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-22972.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.420-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--15.420-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: yebcs53SkkCUi/HvzBgKWeUzmEcX3IxvgRykyfrH1xmdCqKtxM6bh1hj /slyrXkMzNUPqZxlmJ/zJ7zaLbepQShgm748h+1FtYhj2cmvF4YxRS4RlA/AFpps2hiiMFB2FVe /zZlCSYWDtafBkNMcy4DO5vLPyksxQoI3rNys60wER9Ta+6BEXYfGLZ++QpQzFbg+PNnnT+OrWF zW8k/GraX83LbYQ2F2SShWtsB3XbF2rQOOei+D+EhEDfw/93BugHzgwy8qV5rjud2x7TPVt17x5 XmGPCh6iRqhOlglpEjZV75PIFC9U0MN6I0Tm14dRLhbOV0MntRj4Dr+uO34yfYyMZR/kYexgjuz l/ha282UwXMrCr2p8pWsHlfdKk+ny5j7H7ClYgfAJnGRMfFxybqGBW9J0YqjNEJplIoT86zCooE DNritW/Wp2bjAdXAMfjDR1rZ/JoDj0TZojSwaYbU+IyHhkXf1OhJ9m53n4aDM7zpEspqG/74vGQ u4tUWguH9QNhda5DtJpV9rHFX3j+2u5u3xOQvhwbRQ2Bpmliq0X0Yw27VuouQ45nVtPqmxrsFU8 Uw5BC6ytmB2/5InT/zxIC9LasqudG57tpB6osSzLD5kmcW6ZBOySJ0+MHXaE435Dt6W/lg9JrCI Esrp9x/2e9RyQzWhWnMoQfS9Wq8Sd6sOmnf5YwAYYobwIbwCSHjWEz/Dpkz5N0o2THGRZFJQYfp G4rTPPw1HPwekKZJkRkp1KngjvTkEZfvfb2jJDB+ErBr0bANar2Wff4KSIaUXswX/xrISBpNqUz wLvvfJLhr/DX0y76OzLgjJhC8I6UYoyREFdoyeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBvevqq8s2MNhPB9j2Gwz TE3vXkguuQorcgMyvbiSZiuPXy8mKVEmmwS6CACPh6Fv+Wz592E0M6Ct8B+3BndfXUhXQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/XStf6rypntLkYnuShq8XrV_qtRg>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:18:19 -0000
Hi Jon, I see that WG last call completed in silence. Possibly a function of people preparing for IETF-98. Maybe just means that everyone thinks it is obvious to update the RFC and move on. Anyway, since I'm sitting in a WG meeting where the discussion is a little too esoteric even for me, here is a quick (but late) review. Cheers, Adrian === Unfortunate effect of a bis is that the author count has gone OTT. --- A bit odd to wipe the Acknowledgements of the people who contributed to RFC 6006. --- Why has Zafar disappeared from the Authors' Addresses (but remains on the front page)? --- Good job picking up the five errata that are on file. I was a little surprised to see some additional changes that have not been flagged to the WG nor noted anywhere in the document (e.g., in a changes section such as Appendix A). --- I see you added some text to 3.4. I see that this text is to explain the RBNF that follows, so that is probably OK. --- I must have missed the discussion of Errata Report 4867. Sorry about that. There are three issues, I think 1. Trying to pack all RBNF into the spec as though the RBNF was the normative definition of the message format. It isn't and was never intended to be. Doing this gets infinitely complicated as more objects are added. Doesn't mean what you have done is wrong, wrt svec-list, just not necessary. 2. Removal of <BANDWIDTH> from <RRO-List> is wrong, I think. As I see it: You can apply <BANDWIDTH> to the whole <RRO-List> by placing it after the <RRO-List>. If you want one <RRO> in an <RRO-List> to have a different <BANDWIDTH> you can include a separate <BANDWIDTH> after the <RRO>. I think you have *changed* the specification so that the way this function is achieved is to pull the <RRO> that has a different <BANDWIDTH> out into a different <RRO-List>. That's functional and can be changed if that is what people want and have discussed, but doing it with an Errata is a mistake because it was not an error in the document. 3. You also see to think that <BANDWIDTH> cannot be applied to the <END-POINTS> unless an <RRO-LIST> is present. I think that is wrong, too. If it makes sense to have <END-POINTS> without an an <RRO-List> why would you not allow each instance of <END-POINTS> to have its own <BANDWIDTH>? This also seems to be a change of substance rather than an error in the document. Again, the WG is free to make this change, but surely not without discussion. --- I see you have added some text to 3.5. This also seems to be just explanation and is probably OK. --- The fix in 3.12 looks good, but was not flagged to the WG. From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 10 March 2017 13:55 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00 Dear PCE working group, This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/ Please read the document and reply to the PCE mailing list whether you believe this document is ready to be published, or not (including any comments on why not). The last call will end on Monday 20 March. Best regards Jon, JP and Julien
- [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-… Jonathan Hardwick
- Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-… Jonathan Hardwick
- Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-… Adrian Farrel