Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11
chen.ran@zte.com.cn Sun, 01 October 2023 09:49 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 CDED0C151980; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 02:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 cmQAxz9wSJ0J; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 02:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
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 571C1C14CEE3; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 02:49:19 -0700 (PDT)
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 mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4RyznQ0LT5z8XrRB; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 17:49:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app01.zte.com.cn ([10.40.12.136]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 3919n8Y5036414; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 17:49:08 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from chen.ran@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njy2app08[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Sun, 1 Oct 2023 17:49:11 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2023 17:49:11 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2b0065194097ffffffffdc0-71f6b
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202310011749111003872@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <04af01d9f255$0ae4f7a0$20aee6e0$@olddog.co.uk>
References: CAP7zK5ZTXKMgUN6JaXgL7sKc3XTzYD8VrUjq-b5joRLLBHyjbw@mail.gmail.com, 04af01d9f255$0ae4f7a0$20aee6e0$@olddog.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, dd@dhruvdhody.com, pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-chen-pce-bier@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 3919n8Y5036414
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 6519409A.000/4RyznQ0LT5z8XrRB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/mmxakKHABqWusEBUwurs4jhtNEA>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11
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: Sun, 01 Oct 2023 09:49:24 -0000
Hi Adian, Many thanks for your comprehensive and helpful review. We have just published the new version draft-chen-pce-bier-te-00,which include all your comments. Since the name of the draft has been updated based on the opinions of Jeffery and Nils, it needs to be reviewed by the chairman before it can be seen on the IETF page. Please check back later. Please, See inline for detailed response... Original From: AdrianFarrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <dd@dhruvdhody.com>;pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>; Cc: draft-chen-pce-bier@ietf.org <draft-chen-pce-bier@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年09月29日 05:45 Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce 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. [Ran]: Sure. We will communicate with the authors. Since China is on National Day holiday, so can we deal with it later? --- Please run idnits and clean up the document. It would have been easy to do this before requesting adoption. [Ran] Done. --- Please use the correct boilerplate in Section 2. [Ran] Done. --- Section 3 has BIER-TE computed by a PCE can be represented in the following forms: but then there is only one form shown. [Ran] Done. Changed to : BIER-TE computed by a PCE can be represented as: The previous version defined three forms, but after discussion, only one was retained. --- 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? [Ran] Done. Already applied for iana allocation for bits. --- 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. [Ran] Done. Changed to 2 octet. Consistent with the type and length of other TLVs of the LSP objet. --- 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? [Ran] Done. Added padding field. --- 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. [Ran]: It can easily identify that the path that needs to be established is a BIER-TE path. Similar to SR, SRv6 defines new PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV contained in RP/SRP object. --- 6.6 Could you abbreviate "ERO Object" as EROO? ;-) [Ran] Done. --- 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? [Ran] The TLV is added the "Reserved" field to pad. How does someone reading the TLV know where the bit string stops? [Ran] Done. Added some descriptions about the relationship between BSL and bitstring. If k is the length of the BitString, the value of BitStringLen is log2(k)-5. However, only certain values are supported: * 1: 64 bits * 2: 128 bits * 3: 256 bits * 4: 512 bits * 5: 1024 bits --- 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. [Ran] Sorry, typo, updated From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 25 September 2023 17:49 To: pce@ietf.org Cc: draft-chen-pce-bier@ietf.org 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
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Adrian Farrel
- [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 xiong.quan
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 chen.ran
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Huaimo Chen
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 chen.ran
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 zhang.zheng
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 秦凤伟
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 xiong.quan
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 chen.ran
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 chen.ran
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 谭振林
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 linchangwang
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 chen.ran
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Qiuyuanxiang
- Re: [Pce] [警惕!外部邮件] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce… 高星(联通集团本部)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Jing Wang
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Boris Khasanov
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 chen.ran
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11 tom petch