Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

 

I have no objection to the working group taking on this draft although

I suspect that the community of interest is quite small, so there is

some concern about proper review and WG consensus. Hopefully this

adoption poll will secure a few promises of future review.

 

A few editorial points, below.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

===

 

Can we please get out of the habit of bring drafts up for adoption with

more than five authors on the front page. They will never get as far as

RFCs like that, and it seems unreasonable to ask the working group

chairs to appoint document editors after adoption - the authors should

sort this out for themselves.

 

---

 

Please run idnits and clean up the document. It would have been easy to

do this before requesting adoption.

 

---

 

Please use the correct boilerplate in Section 2.

 

---

 

Section 3 has

   BIER-TE computed by a PCE can be represented in the

   following forms:

but then there is only one form shown.

 

---

 

Several of the new TLVs etc. have bit-flag fields with bits defined.

Please consider whether you need to ask IANA to create registries to

track further bit assignments. If you don't need registries, why do

you need whole fields?

 

---

 

6.2

 

You should give some clues about the value of the Length field since you

know what values it might have. Also, I presume that the Length field

could tell you a lot about the BFR prefix.

 

But, also, you say it is one octet, and you show it as 16 bits.

 

---

 

6.2

 

If the tunnel identifier is 11 or 23 octets then the TLV is not a

multiple of 4 (which is usually the case for PCEP TLVs). Is it padded

or what?

 

---

 

6.3

 

   In order to setup an BIER-TE, a new PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV MUST be

   contained in RP/SRP object.

 

Not sure that this document is needed to set up anything with BIER-TE.

It is just something that you can use.

 

---

 

6.6

 

Could you abbreviate "ERO Object" as EROO?  ;-)

 

---

 

6.6.1

 

The definition of "Adjacency BitString" seems to indicate that any 

number of bits can be present. But the description of "Length" says that

the TLV length must be a multiple of 4 octets. How is the TLV padded? 

How does someone reading the TLV know where the bit string stops?

 

---

 

Section 6.7 has same issues as 6.6

 

---

 

Is Section 8 correct? It says:

 

   IANA has registered the code points for the protocol elements defined

   in this document.

 

But I don't think those have been registered.

 

From: Pce <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 25 September 2023 17:49
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11

 

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-bier-11.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-bier/

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 Monday 9th Oct 2023.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien