Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Mon, 30 September 2019 20:45 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 9AB8B120143; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 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] 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 UcVnwFqihn3c; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
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 2A11E12008C; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
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 x8UKeMSm011526; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:45:19 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2vbr39hcd4-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:45:16 -0400
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 x8UKjCo6018872; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:45:14 -0400
Received: from zlp27127.vci.att.com (zlp27127.vci.att.com [135.66.87.31]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x8UKj6aT018636 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:45:06 -0400
Received: from zlp27127.vci.att.com (zlp27127.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27127.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id B47BD4009E94; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 20:45:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.148]) by zlp27127.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 9EB3E4009E8E; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 20:45:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.151]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.148]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:45:06 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
CC: pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request@ietf.org>, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com>
Thread-Topic: Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVd4JEhvkCSsjTpUO5HkMCNB1mjKdErbWg
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 20:45:05 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8A3A5B672@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <156983718180.546.10162334928586461765.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAB75xn7y2CrmW9ApEuRbjZD2P1b-A=xktr-hHZp-H1x-f1ggAA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn7y2CrmW9ApEuRbjZD2P1b-A=xktr-hHZp-H1x-f1ggAA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.213.70]
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=2019-09-30_11:, , 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-1909300177
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/jmn15X5VaFh6Zn1AMuaaKWnPbJ4>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)
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, 30 Sep 2019 20:45:26 -0000

Hi,

RFC8231 implementations do not need to be aware of this RFC's capability. Only for those wanting to support this new capability, they will follow this RFC.

As the capability is optional - not required for RFC8231 implementations - to me that's an "extension", not an "update".

Thanks!
Deborah


-----Original Message-----
From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 7:28 AM
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Cc: pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>rg>; pce@ietf.org; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request@ietf.org; Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com>
Subject: Re: Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Martin,

Thanks for your review, request authors to chime in as needed.

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:23 PM Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg
> _statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r
> =6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KTlgQC1T5yVjjuykht4r_tb9Z8KmolfZvjbnrdrTltE&
> s=-lWEB25n3fmFCK0XDlsLE5aD_o2TOZgcVBAwzBsEYDk&e=
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.
> org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dpce-2Dlsp-2Dcontrol-2Drequest_&d=DwIBaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=KTlgQC1T5yVjjuykht4r_tb9Z
> 8KmolfZvjbnrdrTltE&s=bK1VoQrU3l_ECgvjAVBHkS2ioansSJs0DE0by5fo3bg&e=
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> thank you for this document.
> This document indicates:
> "...MUST NOT trigger the error condition for unknown PLSP-ID in an LSP 
> update request as per [RFC8231] ...". "...MUST NOT trigger the error 
> handling as specified in [RFC8231] ...".
>
> Yet, it also says:
> The procedures for granting and relinquishing control of the LSPs are 
> specified in accordance with the specification [RFC8231].
>

Maybe we can add - "...unless explicitly set aside in this document."

> So
> 1/ it seems to me that the latter sentence, considering the first two, 
> is not strictly correct. 2/ the rationale is well described, so I'm 
> fine with not respecting the original rules of 8231, but then I wonder 
> if this document shouldn't update 8231.
>
>

I am not sure if this rises to the level of "update" (as I understand it and not taking the ongoing discussion on the topic); to me it is a normal extension of a protocol 'business as usual'!

I think maybe it is time for some AD guidance on this :)

Thanks!
Dhruv