Re: [Pce] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Wed, 18 September 2019 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 487D5120128; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=Ewxf2DTw; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=KpGUCJQz
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 xt0vsSiJ2WxH; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABB5212012C; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8333213BD; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:12:00 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=7 0rtMltCfj1jRyEZcdCkfepzK9Y6W8pYzF0Jn+GfG2Q=; b=Ewxf2DTweIhLlzsvk MkvgNpTu9e0JbP/tB0GehdbZkBhH+3HsodTFMP8xutPJEE3Ry6U4du3NPuuXaYBO liGBSlc7L6loc2Oz81dfwudNtakACOTQdHSmpgOtQrI6Ed1BkXuhbiwQ0HR1yjkX 11EtMYwh0za3Y+jAQX0nLww1RAd8H/uTFAJOk9LTUgmqxgCgJEA63VOuPt0xuxS5 AoxWuEk4jCcznlCVw5NzzdjLhEi0/X7xZQS2XzgczsAWUuqh3lg+s4U5JclSaZE9 OoU4SAuED09SCuz/62f8jOvs23tdTe9YZn5mphtuIUNk7uXl7OxeVhaSZvsM8AFv yodwA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=70rtMltCfj1jRyEZcdCkfepzK9Y6W8pYzF0Jn+GfG 2Q=; b=KpGUCJQz13rMWPEzB/1nCqgaNSwM4tklP8Ujm1in+fARzFaqynWW5g1+8 CoGrP8E+fUUDcoz/hI40LNBQ6MmeA1FdW8MXAGFStCOvMYO/t1LGZJs1zLjMU0Uz X4MDnz9bB+Dq8kD9NLbDS8pw1/95Eb0USFTPmM7uXAcCPN/n8/EkFI9gYTcNhLrY Y4ir5HXLlmPrQSxhFcMjlLte0pyp8o3i0rRUQ9eIWLSB4C0fv2wzdeZ1s3V+fF3e MIcBy3TbIKNBO92KenT24T3d9MJ0xYGwm/0tqt4dnhAOYAdUGv/DaWh3HtC+UTAD i43bXVkozx9WKaDRkM3ZoPcWE/qSA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:gIGCXT08riDzRfNPSPKjBtRoltEr0O096iT7DFnSJyPFuK1ZiZk5AQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrudekgddufeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomheptehlihhs shgrucevohhophgvrhcuoegrlhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhnqeenucffohhmrg hinhepghhithhhuhgsuhhsvghrtghonhhtvghnthdrtghomhdpghhithhhuhgsrdgtohhm pdhivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrdelfeenucfrrghrrghmpe hmrghilhhfrhhomheprghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinhenucevlhhushhtvghr ufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:gIGCXSMFRiXVmXSXqmcGtkwN2qRhsdex_EZtQZLw9WnXKya2_aZBPA> <xmx:gIGCXbW25mS-kV6-MKpSYuMIqzufU-ox9DgEA8proGz-Rxu03onuWg> <xmx:gIGCXfYIBVDoyvNSsuLIeyEh2ZdRX8ELXTaRqHynVaUgrakUiEyr9Q> <xmx:gIGCXRriSMhKNcI-6HV5n5wfWetGmXm3X5c0m64UUspCnPud7q9PwQ>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.93]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C1FAE80064; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:11:59 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <904a88e9-440f-ba77-cab0-b06e071ec172@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:11:57 -0400
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce.all@ietf.org, Daniel King <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <14028402-EA9C-4C3F-8199-54D33893739C@cooperw.in>
References: <8bc6f14c-3c4b-9d00-e920-4bebf4c58f15@alum.mit.edu> <CAB75xn4APq=Cr3fSNz_W7C1zEd7bga3vMvK8=cKLivhPmVBCpg@mail.gmail.com> <904a88e9-440f-ba77-cab0-b06e071ec172@alum.mit.edu>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/faNbSUlLoZUtoAfk-HzMc0ZT-sI>
Subject: Re: [Pce] [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11
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, 18 Sep 2019 19:12:04 -0000

Paul, thanks for your review. Dhruv, thanks for the updates. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa


> On Aug 21, 2019, at 1:12 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Dhruv,
> 
> Thanks for addressing my concerns.
> 
> Regarding (C-E / E-C) and (EC-EP / EP-EC): I recognized that there was more to it, and that using "E" for P-PCE in this document would be problematic. I guess this is just a conflict between documents that has to be tolerated.
> 
> And it hadn't dawned on me that the linking issues were artifacts of the automatic generation mechanism.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> On 8/21/19 7:26 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>> Thanks for your review, please see inline...
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>>> like any other last call comments.
>>> 
>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>> 
>>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>> 
>>> Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11
>>> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
>>> Review Date: 2019-08-20
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-28
>>> IESG Telechat date: ?
>>> 
>>> Summary:
>>> 
>>> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
>>> be fixed before publication.
>>> 
>>> Issues:
>>> 
>>> Major: 0
>>> Minor: 0
>>> Nits:  7
>>> 
>>> 1) NIT: No glossary
>>> 
>>> Since I am not familiar with the subject domain, when I started reading
>>> this document I felt I was lost among the acronyms. While you are good
>>> at defining these at first use, I couldn't keep them all in mind as I
>>> read. I had to create my own glossary to support me while reading. I
>>> would really appreciate having a glossary in the document.
>>> 
>> Added.
>>> 2) NIT: Inconsistent terminology
>>> 
>>> In section 3 two pairs of terms are introduced: (C-E / E-C) and (EC-EP /
>>> EP-EC). IIUC in the first pair "E" stands for "PCE" while in the second
>>> pair "E" seems to stand for "Extended", while "P" stands for PCE. I
>>> found this very confusing. I think it would be better to allow "E" to
>>> mean the same thing in both pairs. Perhaps you could use "X" to stand
>>> for "eXtended". Then there would be clear parallels:
>>> 
>>> C -> XC
>>> E -> XE
>>> 
>>> Please consider doing something relieve the confusion.
>>> 
>> The use of notation C-E and E-C is as per RFC 8231
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8231#section-4 where PCC to PCE is
>> (C-E) and PCE to PCC is (E-C). In this document we wanted to represent
>> messages between C-PCE (child PCE) to P-PCE (parent PCE) and we used
>> EC-EP for it and the reverse EP-EC for P-PCE to C-PCE communication.
>> This was discussed during shepherd review as well (as we were using CE
>> and PE before but that was causing confusion because of the well known
>> meaning of those terms in routing).
>> I would like to keep the existing notations that has WG support.
>>> 3) NIT: Badly formed sentence
>>> 
>>> I can't parse this sentence in section 3.1:
>>> 
>>>     Procedures as described in [RFC6805] are applied and where the
>>>     ingress C-PCE (Child PCE), triggers a path computation request for
>>>     the LER in the domain where the LSP originates, sends a request to
>>>     the P-PCE.
>>> 
>>> Can you rephrase it?
>>> 
>> Updated.
>>> 4) NIT: Unclear text
>>> 
>>> In section 3.1 are steps A/B/C/D to be added at the *end*, after step
>>> 11? It would help to be explicit.
>>> 
>>> In step (C) of section 3.2, can you please be explicit about which node
>>> is to execute these elements? I think it is PCE5, but I'm not certain.
>>> 
>> Updated.
>>> 5) NIT: Unlinked references
>>> 
>>> Some RFC references (e.g. [RFC8051] and [RFC8231] in section 1.1, and
>>> [RFC8232] in section 3.1) are not linked in the HTML version. I suggest
>>> a global search for all such unlinked references in the source.
>>> 
>> The HTML version of the draft is automatically generated from the text
>> version. The `rfcmarkup` is used to render the HTML of the I-D/sRFCs.
>> Specifically, rfcmarkup produces the final HTML using heuristics from
>> the source TXT and this is beyond the control of the authors.
>>> 6) NIT: Bad reference link
>>> 
>>> In the following from section 3.1:
>>> 
>>>     Steps 1 to 11 are exactly as described in section 4.6.2 (Hierarchical
>>>     PCE End-to-End Path Computation Procedure) of [RFC6805], the
>>> 
>>> the "section 4.6.2" is linked to the non-existent section 4.6.2 of
>>> *this* document rather than RFC6805.
>>> 
>>> A similar link to the same spot in section 3.2 is ok.
>>> 
>> I arranged the words so that rfcmarkup works.
>>> 7) NIT: Outdated references:
>>> 
>>> IdNits reports outdated references. I trust these will be updated in due
>>> course.
>>> 
>> Updated.
>> Working Copy: https://github.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-12.txt
>> Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-12.txt
>> Thanks!
>> Dhruv
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art