Re: [Pce] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 21 August 2019 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 AA1F8120D1E; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 g3KUPLVtg0oX; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (outgoing-alum.mit.edu [18.7.68.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31F8D120D01; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 10:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Kokiri.localdomain (c-24-62-227-142.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.62.227.142]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x7LHCKaH015099 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:12:21 -0400
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce.all@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
References: <8bc6f14c-3c4b-9d00-e920-4bebf4c58f15@alum.mit.edu> <CAB75xn4APq=Cr3fSNz_W7C1zEd7bga3vMvK8=cKLivhPmVBCpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <904a88e9-440f-ba77-cab0-b06e071ec172@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:12:20 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn4APq=Cr3fSNz_W7C1zEd7bga3vMvK8=cKLivhPmVBCpg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ZTuxeRHcAOVvt6oKcLlfrmjyMwk>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:12:35 -0000

Dhruv,

Thanks for addressing my concerns.

Regarding (C-E / E-C) and (EC-EP / EP-EC): I recognized that there was 
more to it, and that using "E" for P-PCE in this document would be 
problematic. I guess this is just a conflict between documents that has 
to be tolerated.

And it hadn't dawned on me that the linking issues were artifacts of the 
automatic generation mechanism.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 8/21/19 7:26 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Thanks for your review, please see inline...
> 
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11
>> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
>> Review Date: 2019-08-20
>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-28
>> IESG Telechat date: ?
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
>> be fixed before publication.
>>
>> Issues:
>>
>> Major: 0
>> Minor: 0
>> Nits:  7
>>
>> 1) NIT: No glossary
>>
>> Since I am not familiar with the subject domain, when I started reading
>> this document I felt I was lost among the acronyms. While you are good
>> at defining these at first use, I couldn't keep them all in mind as I
>> read. I had to create my own glossary to support me while reading. I
>> would really appreciate having a glossary in the document.
>>
> 
> Added.
> 
>> 2) NIT: Inconsistent terminology
>>
>> In section 3 two pairs of terms are introduced: (C-E / E-C) and (EC-EP /
>> EP-EC). IIUC in the first pair "E" stands for "PCE" while in the second
>> pair "E" seems to stand for "Extended", while "P" stands for PCE. I
>> found this very confusing. I think it would be better to allow "E" to
>> mean the same thing in both pairs. Perhaps you could use "X" to stand
>> for "eXtended". Then there would be clear parallels:
>>
>> C -> XC
>> E -> XE
>>
>> Please consider doing something relieve the confusion.
>>
> 
> The use of notation C-E and E-C is as per RFC 8231
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8231#section-4 where PCC to PCE is
> (C-E) and PCE to PCC is (E-C). In this document we wanted to represent
> messages between C-PCE (child PCE) to P-PCE (parent PCE) and we used
> EC-EP for it and the reverse EP-EC for P-PCE to C-PCE communication.
> 
> This was discussed during shepherd review as well (as we were using CE
> and PE before but that was causing confusion because of the well known
> meaning of those terms in routing).
> 
> I would like to keep the existing notations that has WG support.
> 
>> 3) NIT: Badly formed sentence
>>
>> I can't parse this sentence in section 3.1:
>>
>>      Procedures as described in [RFC6805] are applied and where the
>>      ingress C-PCE (Child PCE), triggers a path computation request for
>>      the LER in the domain where the LSP originates, sends a request to
>>      the P-PCE.
>>
>> Can you rephrase it?
>>
> 
> Updated.
> 
>> 4) NIT: Unclear text
>>
>> In section 3.1 are steps A/B/C/D to be added at the *end*, after step
>> 11? It would help to be explicit.
>>
>> In step (C) of section 3.2, can you please be explicit about which node
>> is to execute these elements? I think it is PCE5, but I'm not certain.
>>
> 
> Updated.
> 
>> 5) NIT: Unlinked references
>>
>> Some RFC references (e.g. [RFC8051] and [RFC8231] in section 1.1, and
>> [RFC8232] in section 3.1) are not linked in the HTML version. I suggest
>> a global search for all such unlinked references in the source.
>>
> 
> The HTML version of the draft is automatically generated from the text
> version. The `rfcmarkup` is used to render the HTML of the I-D/sRFCs.
> Specifically, rfcmarkup produces the final HTML using heuristics from
> the source TXT and this is beyond the control of the authors.
> 
>> 6) NIT: Bad reference link
>>
>> In the following from section 3.1:
>>
>>      Steps 1 to 11 are exactly as described in section 4.6.2 (Hierarchical
>>      PCE End-to-End Path Computation Procedure) of [RFC6805], the
>>
>> the "section 4.6.2" is linked to the non-existent section 4.6.2 of
>> *this* document rather than RFC6805.
>>
>> A similar link to the same spot in section 3.2 is ok.
>>
> 
> I arranged the words so that rfcmarkup works.
> 
>> 7) NIT: Outdated references:
>>
>> IdNits reports outdated references. I trust these will be updated in due
>> course.
>>
> 
> Updated.
> 
> Working Copy: https://github.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-12.txt
> Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-12.txt
> 
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>