Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

chen.ran@zte.com.cn Thu, 14 December 2023 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <chen.ran@zte.com.cn>
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 18BF5C14CE54; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 00:00:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bmZKCz6w-e9a; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 23:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51235C14CE33; Wed, 13 Dec 2023 23:59:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.251.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4SrPs174wZz8XrRK; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:59:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxct.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4SrPrR6RVxz4xVbt; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:59:19 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app04.zte.com.cn ([10.40.12.64]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3BE7xCoB041489; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:59:12 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app08[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:59:14 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 15:59:14 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b00657ab5d2ffffffffa66-4658e
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202312141559144738354@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAP7zK5aUnRZFSVdAbu8hyNda51_oWHNfw7dZQDoc7YE9Nq_eqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: CAP7zK5aUnRZFSVdAbu8hyNda51_oWHNfw7dZQDoc7YE9Nq_eqw@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: dd@dhruvdhody.com, pce@ietf.org, draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 3BE7xCoB041489
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 657AB5F5.001/4SrPs174wZz8XrRK
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/gu0jzQYhUJtM2zBcwMXV8kzkVAQ>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 14 Dec 2023 08:00:01 -0000

Hi WG

I surport the adoption of this draft, it is very useful. but I have a few minor (non-blocking) comments:
3.1.  LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
The LSP object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231], and the new extended flags TLV is defined in [RFC9357]. This draft reuse the new extended flags TLV is defined in [RFC9357], and only defines a new flag,right? If so, it is recommended that the title be changed to "New Flag in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAGS TLV" which is more appropriate.
I am confused when I see the description below in the draft:

In addition, Not only [I-D.peng-pce-entropy-label-position] has defined the E-flag, IANA has already assigned multiple LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Flag Field , see link: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-extended-flag-tlv-flags.   It is recommended to delete the description of E-flag.
Best Regards,
Ran



Original


From: DhruvDhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
To: pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>;
Cc: draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org <draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年12月01日 18:33
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce



Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Friday 15th Dec 2023.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien