Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)
Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 30 September 2019 11:28 UTC
Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
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 EBCF112022C; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 SsMWwjdDlsxV; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2f.google.com (mail-io1-xd2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0C2E120227; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2f.google.com with SMTP id b19so9198700iob.4; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=u0hL0tQAXZflckLy9pNMSdkAttvZrsk+y0KE17CMEF4=; b=uHxJGIkE0LEz9zwMYvHBkiFsZmnhkKHRY76aVqcQUE5MJHslSDKgbxJO+qHThfF8OR w1YT+KPIIN8/jJWG3ljESODOJkg9u6ichGfDkeD8xrRG1B26OGEys4EyNQeRdqbpLvh3 FV7So4q+Z35mvyvngJDQwsFu00nlNww4u87eQ3Y9IpvHWPccy5uemJ50dtfYn8kdpJgp mjj5Z+GMYRiYO+d7gLunDdnJ2djsRfACFFaw3UJiQ+PgO1s50i5zeh19n1NZaGFKL/QT cMxVUYCuGGMFQFNYNOnA8Dqn4885QvkwcXacrDk+Rz+mArmBw/sZPsIE+vxcydJUkwRU 32aQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=u0hL0tQAXZflckLy9pNMSdkAttvZrsk+y0KE17CMEF4=; b=qsmQmWDOjiN8adqj2ErGHtzVM6v4uLWx94exeOH2l1oFO6lO9iTN7Ku/Twxb3A+uji oPPIz1bk8b9RCkfczazm2SexGFUGtzGUDy/E2yuyeTJXGBgf6t4+Fdo/Os2o68uSc7mK 7PW6Wd41NSjNrix4yMBn5MCJujmVOolP8nn6UQXoJ1yvDD6LAxRvBCPOD9EGAipBLirK K7YoMRfHCcg6dR5cC8JFtNPPffxTxza+OrEgPQi/di/6C/CFaPVXu2cK4QI2w8P6jPRu iF45ArCYFzUj6h1XJSKVmvbezVnQQ13G2H72AK/wJkr9ZsZW9awu4oB1TJTgDQA1BgAF ic/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX6lSWGeKkQeUk+9J4kM0LWs3Un6wthlEDRjhji0QxZunDZCQrV pP+o4B2f4UgkXwOZp8viCLHhgoxSHwsOQHp7ek0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxaQJCe/KCSEozjV1txubRRwNHQX9pJJCOchadrTZPuBEepEg4N3wH8A25jB1VUH46xahzDADdzcoAzO7JZVT0=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9457:: with SMTP id x23mr4701312ior.14.1569842929914; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156983718180.546.10162334928586461765.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <156983718180.546.10162334928586461765.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:58:13 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn7y2CrmW9ApEuRbjZD2P1b-A=xktr-hHZp-H1x-f1ggAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request@ietf.org, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com>, pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/bjAD_SygV3mkl74KYoxSrCanuJY>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)
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: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:28:53 -0000
Hi Martin, Thanks for your review, request authors to chime in as needed. On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:23 PM Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: 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-lsp-control-request/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi, > > thank you for this document. > This document indicates: > "...MUST NOT trigger the error condition for unknown PLSP-ID in an LSP update > request as per [RFC8231] ...". "...MUST NOT trigger the error handling as > specified in [RFC8231] ...". > > Yet, it also says: > The procedures for granting and relinquishing control of the LSPs are specified > in accordance with the specification [RFC8231]. > Maybe we can add - "...unless explicitly set aside in this document." > So > 1/ it seems to me that the latter sentence, considering the first two, is not > strictly correct. 2/ the rationale is well described, so I'm fine with not > respecting the original rules of 8231, but then I wonder if this document > shouldn't update 8231. > > I am not sure if this rises to the level of "update" (as I understand it and not taking the ongoing discussion on the topic); to me it is a normal extension of a protocol 'business as usual'! I think maybe it is time for some AD guidance on this :) Thanks! Dhruv
- [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ie… Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker
- Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draf… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draf… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draf… Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
- Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draf… Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
- Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draf… BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draf… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draf… Dhruv Dhody