IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: (with COMMENT)

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Wed, 10 July 2019 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.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 747EE1200DE; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 ZtNyvQPpZiYB; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 C8188120140; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 06:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 80F03B4554B62CB09B0F; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:21:39 +0100 (IST)
Received: from BLREML701-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.170) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 14:21:39 +0100
Received: from BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.50]) by blreml701-cah.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 10 Jul 2019 18:48:54 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: 'Martin Vigoureux' <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-association-group@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-association-group@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVNpnFFHIaaz1nPkOr4jNxY26wNqbDgM4Q
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:18:53 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8DB193D9@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <156270617956.15896.4447879410478869341.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <156270617956.15896.4447879410478869341.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.76.62]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/bwFZh8d_p5kIyWdvkqE8VOtyU8c>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-group-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: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 13:21:45 -0000

Hi Martin,

Thanks for your review. See inline...

 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thanks for this document, here are a couple of comments/questions.
> 
>    The PCEP ASSOC-Type-List TLV is optional.  It MAY be carried within
>    an OPEN object sent by a PCEP speaker in an Open message to a PCEP
>    peer so as to indicate the list of supported Association types.
> This is said twice. (First paragraph of section 4.1) and then in 4.1.1:
>    A PCEP speaker MAY include an ASSOC-Type-List TLV within an OPEN
>    object in an Open message sent to a PCEP peer in order to advertise a
>    set of one or more supported association types.
>    The use of ASSOC-Type-List TLV is OPTIONAL.
> 
> It doesn't hurt, but you might want to consider saying this only once.
> Also I note OPTIONAL vs optional
> 
[[Dhruv Dhody]] Ack. 


> Sending ASSOC-Type-List TLV is optional but it might be mandatory to send
> some to-be-defined Association types. Isn't that somehow conflicting?
> 
[[Dhruv Dhody]] The aim was to say that right now this TLV is optional, but a future association type (say disjoint) can specify that if you want to use *this particular association type* you need to include the TLV. So if an implementation does not support this particular association type, the TLV would be optional, and if it needs to support this, then the TLV becomes mandatory to include.  

> The PCEP OP-CONF-ASSOC-RANGE TLV is optional.
> OPTIONAL?
> 
[[Dhruv Dhody]] Ack.

> Could you clarify the difference between a PCEP speaker does not recognize
> the ASSOCIATION object and a PCE peer is ... unable to process the
> ASSOCIATION I see that the errors thrown are different.
> 
[[Dhruv Dhody]] The difference is between ASSOCIATION Object being unknown (former) and Object being known *but* not supported/processed (latter).  

> Nits:
> s/protections LSPs/protection LSPs/
> s/The Assoc-type MAY appear more than once/A given Assoc-type MAY appear
> more than once/ s/to uniquely identifying/to uniquely identify/
> 
>
[[Dhruv Dhody]] Ack. 
 
Working Copy: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10.txt
Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10.txt

Thanks! 
Dhruv

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email