[Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-11: (with COMMENT)
Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 02 February 2021 18:23 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB1B3A0D4D; Tue, 2 Feb 2021 10:23:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, dd@dhruvdhody.com, dd@dhruvdhody.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.25.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Message-ID: <161229023115.6672.7589768462476070182@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 10:23:51 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/nxNquQezSK7_IWjHOuW0S7mCEr0>
Subject: [Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 18:23:51 -0000
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-11: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for an easy read. I just have two very small comments: — Abstract — The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) using PCEP. Hm. I’m not clear here: Does this have something to do with path computation? He-he... seriously, I understand the repetition, given the expansion of the abbreviations. What I wonder is whether it’s necessary to put all those terms into the Abstract, given that the expansion of "PCEP" already includes "path computation element". What do you think about shortening the Abstract thus?: SUGGESTION This document defines Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for grouping two unidirectional MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs), one in each direction in the network, into an Associated Bidirectional LSP. The mechanisms defined in this document can be applied using a Stateful PCE for both PCE-Initiated and PCC-Initiated LSPs, as well as when using a Stateless PCE. The procedures defined are applicable to the LSPs using RSVP-TE for signaling. END I note that "MPLS-TE", "PCE", and "RSVP-TE" are all in the RFC Editor’s list of abbreviations that don’t need expansion... though, of course, you can put the expansions back in if you prefer. I also note that "PCC" is not, but I think it would be awkward to include the expansion of "PCC" here, so maybe we can manage without it in the Abstract. — Section 3.1 — Both endpoint nodes act as a PCC. Nit: "Both" is plural, so either "Both endpoint nodes act as PCCs." or "Each endpoint node acts as a PCC."
- [Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pc… Barry Leiba via Datatracker
- Re: [Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-iet… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-iet… Barry Leiba