Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Thu, 17 August 2017 09:06 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 1748E13269C; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 02:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 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, 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 vfJK_xvPb-9I; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 02:06:30 -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 6DF54132386; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 02:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DMU53567; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:06:27 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.43) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:06:25 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.198]) by BLREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.43]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:36:12 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis.all@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03
Thread-Index: AQHTFDrKXuNsUXmJ/0aASYriy6cC9KKIDkRA
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:06:12 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBB37A0@blreml501-mbx>
References: <150263205807.26527.8869013927407425945@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <150263205807.26527.8869013927407425945@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020202.59955C93.00CB, 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: af1ef5618c163fe384c012dbf9167f12
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/o0lH2K3SALVcqqvWpyM1CcbGeT8>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03
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: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:06:32 -0000

Hi Roni, 

Thanks for your comments. See inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roni Even
> Sent: 13 August 2017 19:18
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis.all@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03
> 
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
> the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call
> comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-??
> Reviewer: Roni Even
> Review Date: 2017-08-13
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-24
> IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-31
> 
> Summary: The document is ready for publication as standard track RFC
> 
> I read all the document and also did a compare with RFC6006 to look at the
> changes.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 1. In section 4.2 I am not sure why is this sentence there, is it for the
> current yang document or for a future one. Why have it at all?-"The PCEP
> YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] can be extended to also include the
> P2MP related parameters."
> 
[[Dhruv Dhody]] The text around MIB existed from RFC6006. Since then the focus has shifted to Yang. 
We wanted to keep this text about Yang to reflect that.  

How about we reword to - 

   The PCEP YANG model is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. The
   YANG models can be augmented to also include the P2MP related
   parameters.

Thanks again for your review. 

Regards,
Dhruv

Working Copy - https://github.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt



> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce