Re: [Pce] 答复: Secdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-29

["Smith, Ned" <[e-mail]>]

The suggested changes look great!
Thanks

On 1/31/24, 7:41 PM, "Aijun Wang" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:


Hi, Ned:


Thanks for your review.
Some detail replies are inline below.


If you have no further comments, I will upload it to address your
concerns/comments then.


Aijun Wang


-----邮件原件-----
发件人: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
代表 Ned Smith via Datatracker
发送时间: 2024年2月1日 3:54
收件人: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
抄送: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
主题: [Pce] Secdir early review of
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-29


Reviewer: Ned Smith
Review result: Has Nits


1) Section 5 header should capitalize "messages"
【WAJ】：Done, together with the sub section 5.1 and 5.2


2) The introduction says, "It is necessary to use the central control mode
described in [RFC8283]". This reads like a mandatory constraint on
implementers but is listed as an informative reference. If the I-D doesn't
actually depend on RFC8283, but the authors are assuming this context, then
the wording could be adjusted to describe the author's assumptions rather
than describe it in
(almost) normative style. Alternatively, it is a normative requirement that
shouldn't exist in the introduction and the reference should move to the
normative list. 
【WAJ】We would like to keep it as an informative reference. How about the
following description:(change "necessary" to "feasible")
"It is feasible to use the central control mode described in RFC 8283... ...
" or your suggestions?




3) Figure 16 - It isn't clear if TBD1 and TBD2 are gaps in the I-D that the
WG has yet to complete vs. extension / extensibility properties that a
subsequent I-D might define. 
【WAJ】TBD1 and TBD2 will be assigned the values by the IANA later. They are
added after the other early IANA temporary allocations.


4) Section 10 "The communication of PCE and PCC described in this document
should also follow the same procedures, treat the three newly defined
objects (BPI, EPR, PPA) associated with the same symbolic path name as the
attribute of the same path in the LSP-DB (LSP State Database)." The "should"
in this sentence reads as though it is normative.
Consider making it upper case. The sentence is potentially easily misread as
it isn't clear which procedures is meant by "...the same procedures,...".
【WAJ】How about the following descriptions: 
The communication of PCE and PCC described in this document SHOULD follow
the state synchronization procedures described in RFC8232, treat the three
newly defined objects (BPI, EPR, PPA) associated with the same symbolic path
name as the attribute of the same path in the LSP-DB (LSP State Database).




_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>