Re: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-01

Ack. Thanks for the speedy response.
A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.dhody@huawei.com]
> Sent: 07 May 2015 04:30
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; pce@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-01
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Thanks for your review, please see the attached working-copy/diff.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> > Sent: 05 May 2015 22:14
> > To: pce@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-01
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > No objections to this document from me, and thanks to the author for the
> > diligence with which he checked the impact of this change. We can't see from
> > the outside whether enough of the "real implementers" responded, but they
> had
> > their chance and this last call is their last chance :-)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > I think it would be helpful if the "update" to RFC 5440 was more anchored
> > into that document.
> >
> > So...
> >
> > The update is to section 7.12, yes?
> > The text in the last paragraph of your section 2 is to be considered part of
> > the spec, yes?
> > The text is intended to replace the last line of 5440/7.12 that currently
> > says
> >    The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO.
> >
> > I also think there is a bit of an over-use of "MUST" in...
> >    The content of an IRO object MUST be an ordered list of subobjects
> >    representing a series of abstract nodes.
> > Using "is" would be more appropriate. You could go "MUST be interpreted as",
> > but that also sounds excessive use of language.
> >
> 
> Okay, updated accordingly. Section 2 now says -
> 
>    This document thus updates [RFC5440] regarding the IRO specification
>    and is intended to replace the last line in section 7.12 of
>    [RFC5440], that states -
> 
>        "The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO."
> 
>    As per the update in this document, the L Bit of IRO sub-object is
>    set based on the loose or strict property of the sub-object, which is
>    set if the sub-object represents a loose hop.  If the bit is not set,
>    the sub-object represents a strict hop.  The interpretation of Loose
>    bit (L bit) is as per section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC3209].
> 
>    Also, as per the update in this document, the content of IRO is an
>    ordered list of sub-objects representing a series of abstract nodes.
>    An abstract node could just be a simple abstract node comprising one
>    node or a group of nodes for example an AS (comprising of multiple
>    hops within the AS) (refer section 4.3.2 of [RFC3209]).
> 
> > ---
> >
> > In the Introduction you say
> >    During discussion of [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence] it was
> >    proposed to have a new IRO type with ordered nature, as well as
> >    handling of Loose bit (L bit).
> >
> > This is completely true and indisputable. But appearing like this it raises
> > more questions than it answers. Either delete the paragraph or add some
> > resolution such as "however, with the update to RFC 5440 described in this
> > document, no new IRO type is needed."
> >
> 
> Okay, added the resolution, and moved the paragraph.
> 
> > ---
> >
> > Section 2 has
> >
> >    A survey of the existing and planned implementations was conducted in
> >    order to discover the current state of affairs amongst
> >    implementations.  [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey] describe the
> >    questionnaire, results and presents some conclusions and proposed
> >    action items.  More details in Appendix A.
> >
> > Having read App A I don't think it adds any more details to what is in the
> > Intro and in this paragraph.
> > You have the reference to the survey i-D (which will stay in the archives
for
> > ever), so I suggest to delete the appendix and the pointer to it.
> >
> 
> Ack.
> 
> > ---
> >
> > It looks to me that RFC 3209 is a normative reference since I must look
there
> > to find out how to interpret the L bit.
> >
> 
> Yes! Done!
> 
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> >
> 
> Thank you for the comments.
> 
> Regards,
> Dhruv
> 
> >
> > > This message initiates a 2-week WG last call on
> > > draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-01. Please send your comments to the PCE
> > > mailing list by Tuesday May 19.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > JP & Julien
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pce mailing list
> > Pce@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce