Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06: (with COMMENT)

Dhruv Dhody <> Mon, 18 April 2016 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6D112E3B7; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.217
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.217 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eGtVVph47ZIN; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 876DC12D8D5; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CHU58789; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:37:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:37:43 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:07:33 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>, The IESG <>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRmYv1nEhySPt1B0a8/cK+EUnkIZ+P9iNQ
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:37:32 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 17:37:50 -0000

Hi Alvaro, 

Thanks for your comments, see inline... 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
> Sent: 18 April 2016 21:33
> To: The IESG
> Cc:;; pce-
> Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-iro-
> update-06: (with COMMENT)
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-06: 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
> criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. WG Consensus
> The Abstract talks about this document resulting from an "informal
> survey".  The Shepherd writeup also mentions the survey and how it was
> "not unanimous".  However, while the survey itself is mentioned in the
> document (10 times in 6 pages!), there is no reference, and more
> importantly nothing is mentioned about WG consensus.
> What I'm getting to here is the following:  regardless of what the
> survey says (or not), this document is on the Standards Track so I
> expect the update to be the result of WG consensus.  If the survey is
> not even referenced (which is fine with me), then the document should
> forget about it and simply point at the updates.  In other words, the
> survey, like discussion on the mailing list, seems to have been used as
> a tool to reach consensus — no need to repeatedly mention the tool.
> I don't think this point raises to the level of a DISCUSS because it
> should be an editorial change.  Even though the archives don't provide
> much in terms of discussion around this document (or draft-dhody-pce-
> iro-survey), I have to assume that it reached this point because there
> is in fact consensus on the update.
[Dhruv]: Reference to the survey document was removed in the last update (based on the AD review). I can reduce the number of times, survey is mentioned, but I do see value in mentioning it in the document. Anyways I will further discuss this point with our shepherd, chairs and AD.   

> 2. Non conforming implementations
> Section 3. (Other Considerations).  Given that other interpretations of
> rfc5440 were possible, I think that the considerations in this section
> are operational, so renaming may be a good idea.  I would expect that
> because this is a Standards Track document that people will eventually
> conform to it, so I think that the "RECOMMEND" at the bottom is not
> needed.  [I think that's the only rfc2119 key word.]

[Dhruv]: Will rename the section to "Operational Considerations". 
What would be a better wording to suggest not to have a mix deployment because of the issue mentioned in the section? 

> 3. Section 2.1. (Update to RFC 5440):
> a. Where should the new statements be added?  I'm assuming after the
> first paragraph.

[Dhruv]: Yes, I can add text! 

> B. "An abstract node could be a simple abstract node…"  Is there a
> better way to define "abstract node" than by using it in the
> definition?  Maybe just point to rfc3209.

[Dhruv]: Ok.

Thanks for your review. 


> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list