[Pce] Chair's pre-adoption review of draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 24 June 2019 10:27 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D15B120090; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 03:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uv4rWJAJ_HiB; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 03:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94369120048; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 03:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id u19so1904288ior.9; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 03:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=asZ2f3xWTk6X49LB4mP0Fz8hrAMOR5PwqPp2laCTTiM=; b=RGK9imDbbJRlItLyhr7XIha9cccxcFzQs0ccVmXK/EfBCrI4tqAZ9dJtf2Fg4zhQaC 0SbekGBJpiJ0lN9WYbDqmV2c5uyd5aP/OAdeAti5VsiWTXN+e26tPTKPzsSlcnaaiufd B40v5Z81NIBFMe4iyLe2tuGnB9vGwxkx1NPcyLcsYVbg6/3uQu4P39CVKtchNeIziElZ VuBLMKVda+bv+Zkc5741PNrTTACCUmRk6lAA5oLK1AiN3yjZdqhV6K1MnQ+Jvw4XxBvU /KJP3jRJ3ag3S//f9rxC1NZWGBqRdEYJKBWiYY4QaouWeBUo4E/xeztwh6SampG8rzas SOIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=asZ2f3xWTk6X49LB4mP0Fz8hrAMOR5PwqPp2laCTTiM=; b=I5vWafCbA/lBJXUgXqfG/qwPhfwQjzrDdr8pYWg2z+SZ+ep7RCMKh1T19T54AEik7c N7BO+nGhczh8feCfXOOR/7yDCza9hgfHbBXACmDs0Wvwy+s45k+6nNF6Tu3RPEhNYGGT NEbGFyMpvxxmz2Rh7aInIdQa4MyWWd1wEHHY5Hl4MJ2dE7kEERJI6Fp1CmHDw+7OB7Td PmCo+LC5sO1iGu6gEBf+IRE25SaUKFJ0q53K9+OQeUQtxRa6kMFqnPlSa9nT5GCgf4ED 8jena3psvyEjWrLXCuMDzMMkqsoiayxNvEPvyb6cgKoymNO7tAIUYZWQ5B3sK3w3y1+w 0pWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXd/rtLcFlmlcdGkYOcrDjBC16B06vCA44q5zj/lZ4NZnJZc195 LmN+Q6m2WMmEh1QRxG5ncEXPJWdWq24olpfJmoCj1qPQ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwBcRrkQWqiIqjewAASU2hTFlx3uOQARx2n78HTMJ348fgupfGaFhsw7yF6+CotTIM7AgStciJh2CKeFQD20A0=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:b90e:: with SMTP id v14mr95497928jan.122.1561372052184; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 03:27:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:56:56 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn6mU55ABe_Wd+ZguVS5NGf3y0hOtWhLqMwSp+vORph1nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/oaBIRA9FnNsV6-JrKKRCdwtLysk>
Subject: [Pce] Chair's pre-adoption review of draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 10:27:38 -0000

Hi Authors,

In preparation for the upcoming WG adoption call, I did a quick review of your
I-D to tidy things up. At this stage we need to make sure that I-D is in good
enough state as a base of further work by the WG if adopted.

(1) 6 authors on the front page, better to handle this now itself, rather than
much later in the process.

(2) Add Implementation Status as per the WG policy. I assume there are
implementations of this work?

(3) Start work on the 'Manageability Considerations' section. Currently it is
marked TBD.

(4) This document includes details about reporting BSID for a path. What
happens when PCE creates a SR path (SR-ERO) that includes a BSID. This detail
is currently missing, we need to a clarity on how to encode a BSID in SR-ERO
and the best place is this document.

My guess would be to say no NAI in case of BSID in SR-ERO and confirm how the
flags should be set for both SR-MPLS and SRv6.

(5) Add reference to Section 6.4 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
for non-SR use of BSID.

(6) Why use 'label/SID' in this I-D? Please check in spring what would be the
best practice can it just be SID?

(7) Security Consideration is bit week. You have a way for PCE to assign BSID
and this needs to be analysed for potential exploitation.

(8) Update Section 6.1.1 to include SRv6

(9) Remove this sentence from section 1 - "However, use of this TLV for
carrying non-MPLS binding SID will be described in separate document(s)."; as
you support SRv6. Similarly, reword section 3, 2nd paragraph.

Note that these are non-blocking comments for WG adoption but it would be
great, if the authors publish a revision handling these.