Re: [Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.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 5DDCA120025; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:19:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 mna-5R3kCkZV; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (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 A845A120112; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:18:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0083689.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xA4IwqvN028718; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 14:18:53 -0500
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2w2sc1hak9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 04 Nov 2019 14:18:53 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xA4JIq0F007396; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 14:18:52 -0500
Received: from zlp27129.vci.att.com (zlp27129.vci.att.com [135.66.87.42]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xA4JImSs007276 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Nov 2019 14:18:48 -0500
Received: from zlp27129.vci.att.com (zlp27129.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27129.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 6C2ED40392AF; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:18:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.145]) by zlp27129.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 54B0B4039286; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:18:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.44]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.145]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 14:18:47 -0500
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "'Mike McBride'" <mmcbride7@gmail.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags.all@ietf.org" <draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Rtgdir last call review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02
Thread-Index: AQHVj3+PJNOs2JNe3EifHLBvdjFz0ad0rX2AgAa1tZA=
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:18:46 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8A3AA927C@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <157248059396.32502.7485483203706927333@ietfa.amsl.com> <032601d58fc4$b8564080$2902c180$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <032601d58fc4$b8564080$2902c180$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.223.80]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-04_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1911040183
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/dYxFEZM4TSKlEvPHqWd6F2BCP1Q>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02
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, 04 Nov 2019 19:19:03 -0000

Hi Mike,

Much thanks for your review!

Adrian, I'm also a bit confused on the intention of the draft. While the tools are not error checking a draft with intended status of PS against a title indicating an individual submission, the title does indicate the source of the document. With the current title, this document is an individual submission to the IETF stream. If this is a product of the working group, the title needs to reflect it. As it is requested to be "PS", it does need to reflect the associated working group.

While it is a bit surprising this was not raised in WG Last Call (hopefully folks have read the document), it will definitely be flagged with the other Area Directorate reviews and IESG review. While the working group cycle was very short, the resulting publication cycle will be very long.

As the WG LC was based on PS status, I would conclude the group is ok with PS. Either you can change the title to reflect a product of the pce working group or change the status to Informational and I'll take it forward as an individual submission. If you change the title to a product of the pce working group, I'll follow up with a note to the list to double check if anyone has any concerns. And then we can move ahead.

Looking forward to your choice😊
Deborah


-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; 
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 4:25 AM
To: 'Mike McBride' <mmcbride7@gmail.com>;; rtg-dir@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags.all@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Rtgdir last call review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02

Hi Mike,

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

> Great job on the easy to understand draft. I probably don't want to 
> know the history of why this is an individual draft but I am curious. 
> I'll ask Adrian over a drink sometime.

Not rejecting the idea of a drink, but just sharing with the wider community...

It is fun to exercise the full range of IETF process options from time to time.
The chairs did not think it was necessary to delay the draft by putting it into the adoption queue and going through all that piece of process when all that was needed was a last call.

> Nits for your consideration:
>
> Abstract:
> "Extensions to the Path Computation Element communications Protocol"
> -capitalize "communications" as you do in the Introduction.

Oh look! Officially there is no 's' on Communication. (Also right in the Introduction) Thanks.

> 4. Compatibility Considerations
> ..
> "It should be noted that common behavior for flags fields is as 
> described by the updated text presented in Section 3 so many 
> implementations, lacking guidance from RFC 8231, will still have 
> implemented a consistent and future-proof approach."
>
> For better readability change to:
> "It should be noted that common behavior for flags fields is as 
> described by the updated text presented in Section 3. Therefore, many 
> implementations, lacking guidance from RFC 8231, will still have 
> implemented a consistent and future-proof approach." Or something similar.
>
> Consider removing all instances of the word "so".

So, you think 'so' is so so-so?

Yup. Caught a couple of equally ambiguous cases.

Best,
Adrian