Re: [Pce] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 31 August 2017 14:59 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 E6E1A13292E; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 07:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, 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 S3vb6QMmOP3I; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 07:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 42A13132623; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 07:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v7VExhOb064925 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:59:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <150406137377.21533.7771156035625566886.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBD62A@blreml501-mbx>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <5be7e778-3cc1-557f-b746-2340e3902c34@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:59:37 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBD62A@blreml501-mbx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ees1ZFIkgaDgnsGdglWRlOpiSfw>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:59:51 -0000
On 8/31/17 01:34, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi Adam, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam Roach >> Sent: 30 August 2017 08:20 >> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> >> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs@ietf.org >> Subject: [Pce] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: >> (with COMMENT) >> >> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: 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-rfc6006bis/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I have only reviewed the diffs from RFC6006 (Perhaps we should request >> tools support for bis document diffs): >> <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://www.rfc- >> editor.org/rfc/rfc6006.txt&url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03> >> >> The instructions in section 6.5 only indicate that IANA should update the >> document reference. The changes indicated in this section additionally >> reserve new values (specifically, the object type of "0" for object >> classes 28-31). As these changes are not called out, they run the risk of >> being overlooked. Please update the instructions to IANA to indicate that >> the registered values have changed, not just the document references. >> > [[Dhruv Dhody]] The Object-Type 0 is already marked in the PCEP IANA registry [1] as "reserved", as part of an earlier Errata [2]. > But you are correct, that the text should be updated to reflect this. > > I have made this change - > > Also, for the following four PCEP objects, the code-point 0 for the > Object-Type field are marked "Reserved" with reference to Errata ID > 4956. IANA is requested to update the reference to point to this > document. > > Is that okay? Yes. Thanks! /a