Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00
Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Wed, 29 March 2017 00:55 UTC
Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.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 D7508127B52 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.218
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_08=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 tMtQjfKYRRQ3 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3971C126579 for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DDS06002; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:55:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML703-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.172) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:55:20 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.200]) by blreml703-cah.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:25:07 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Jonathan Hardwick' <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00
Thread-Index: AdKZpXXhPvTfGSRbSIuvJDIQTvOWNAOPZ8sAAA9MWnA=
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:55:07 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CABE6CD@blreml501-mbb>
References: <BY2PR0201MB191090B5292E1309C1FFAD5C84200@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <02be01d2a811$30babae0$923030a0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <02be01d2a811$30babae0$923030a0$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.145.50]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CABE6CDblreml501mbb_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090205.58DB05FC.001E, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 476e5012a8b1605d38afc4ae536e4fea
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/m6gtw1P-_Pa2d4ArFRAIXi8l8nQ>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00
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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:55:31 -0000
Hi WG, Adrian, Jon and I had a quick chat (the benefit of getting comments during the IETF week). See inline for details... From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 28 March 2017 17:18 To: 'Jonathan Hardwick' <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00 Hi Jon, I see that WG last call completed in silence. Possibly a function of people preparing for IETF-98. Maybe just means that everyone thinks it is obvious to update the RFC and move on. Anyway, since I'm sitting in a WG meeting where the discussion is a little too esoteric even for me, here is a quick (but late) review. Cheers, Adrian === Unfortunate effect of a bis is that the author count has gone OTT. [Dhruv] Yes, I think this can be added in the shepherd report and hopefully that should be fine. --- A bit odd to wipe the Acknowledgements of the people who contributed to RFC 6006. [Dhruv] Ack --- Why has Zafar disappeared from the Authors' Addresses (but remains on the front page)? [Dhruv] Oops, my mistake. Fixed. --- Good job picking up the five errata that are on file. I was a little surprised to see some additional changes that have not been flagged to the WG nor noted anywhere in the document (e.g., in a changes section such as Appendix A). --- I see you added some text to 3.4. I see that this text is to explain the RBNF that follows, so that is probably OK. --- I must have missed the discussion of Errata Report 4867. Sorry about that. There are three issues, I think 1. Trying to pack all RBNF into the spec as though the RBNF was the normative definition of the message format. It isn't and was never intended to be. Doing this gets infinitely complicated as more objects are added. Doesn't mean what you have done is wrong, wrt svec-list, just not necessary. 2. Removal of <BANDWIDTH> from <RRO-List> is wrong, I think. As I see it: You can apply <BANDWIDTH> to the whole <RRO-List> by placing it after the <RRO-List>. If you want one <RRO> in an <RRO-List> to have a different <BANDWIDTH> you can include a separate <BANDWIDTH> after the <RRO>. I think you have *changed* the specification so that the way this function is achieved is to pull the <RRO> that has a different <BANDWIDTH> out into a different <RRO-List>. That's functional and can be changed if that is what people want and have discussed, but doing it with an Errata is a mistake because it was not an error in the document. 3. You also see to think that <BANDWIDTH> cannot be applied to the <END-POINTS> unless an <RRO-LIST> is present. I think that is wrong, too. If it makes sense to have <END-POINTS> without an an <RRO-List> why would you not allow each instance of <END-POINTS> to have its own <BANDWIDTH>? This also seems to be a change of substance rather than an error in the document. Again, the WG is free to make this change, but surely not without discussion. [Dhruv] https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=RFC6006&url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00<https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=RFC6006&url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00> [cid:image001.png@01D2A7FA.3C6C9FA0] - BANDWIDTH object is for the full P2MP tree i.e. for all destinations, we do not need different bandwidth for each destination/RRO. - The re-optimization bandwidth needs to be included only with the RRO; this is same as RFC5440 So the changes in the RBNF were done to fix it. --- I see you have added some text to 3.5. This also seems to be just explanation and is probably OK. --- The fix in 3.12 looks good, but was not flagged to the WG. I will upload a new version as well. Thanks! Dhruv From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 10 March 2017 13:55 To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00 Dear PCE working group, This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/ Please read the document and reply to the PCE mailing list whether you believe this document is ready to be published, or not (including any comments on why not). The last call will end on Monday 20 March. Best regards Jon, JP and Julien
- [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-… Jonathan Hardwick
- Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-… Jonathan Hardwick
- Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-… Adrian Farrel