Return-Path: 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 6BF0EC14F713; Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:40:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.806 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 g-htcMl5kNij; Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-m25484.xmail.ntesmail.com (mail-m25484.xmail.ntesmail.com [103.129.254.84]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFFC9C14F706; Fri, 23 Aug 2024 00:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from LAPTOP09T7970K (unknown [219.142.69.76]) by smtp.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTPA id 316A17E01BB; Fri, 23 Aug 2024 15:39:37 +0800 (CST) From: "Aijun Wang" To: "'John Scudder'" References: <172417010075.2072814.13141317302297304003@dt-datatracker-6df4c9dcf5-t2x2k> <1E6B9335-5B2E-4192-829B-4002AF1E79AB@juniper.net> <003901daf46f$08e95eb0$1abc1c10$@tsinghua.org.cn> <748C3105-421F-4A95-9FD9-D45BB0E03B83@juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <748C3105-421F-4A95-9FD9-D45BB0E03B83@juniper.net> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 15:39:36 +0800 Message-ID: <008701daf52f$9aec5ae0$d0c510a0$@tsinghua.org.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0088_01DAF572.A911E4D0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQMFK3kiT2EADAD30SYmzyzp+ah3+wHVFW3vAgWGdCIC04EnHAFmmuJCAu1odsMDIWx4s69u6cPg Content-Language: zh-cn X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUpXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZFg8aDwILHllBWSg2Ly tZV1koWUFKTEtLSjdXWS1ZQUlXWQ8JGhUIEh9ZQVlDQk1DVh5KQh4YT0lDQhlMHVYeHw5VEwETFh oSFyQUDg9ZV1kYEgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxNWVdZFhoPEhUdFFlBWU9LSFVKS0lPT09IVUpLS1 VKQktLWQY+ X-HM-Tid: 0a917e2d347f03a2kunm316a17e01bb X-HM-MType: 10 X-HM-Sender-Digest: e1kMHhlZQR0aFwgeV1kSHx4VD1lBWUc6NyI6Myo5CzI*DiM1ChMBC1ZC K0kKFFFVSlVKTElPSEJDTExDSk1OVTMWGhIXVQwaFRwaEhEOFTsPCBIVHBMOGlUUCRxVGBVFWVdZ EgtZQVlJSkJVSk9JVU1CVUxNWVdZCAFZQU9KS05NNwY+ Message-ID-Hash: N7OB4HL5VJPWDZFGISFP3TDHOPUWP4SQ X-Message-ID-Hash: N7OB4HL5VJPWDZFGISFP3TDHOPUWP4SQ X-MailFrom: wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pce.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: 'Roman Danyliw' , 'The IESG' , draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org, 'pce-chairs' , pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BPce=5D_=E7=AD=94=E5=A4=8D=3A_Roman_Danyliw=27s_Discuss_on_draft?= =?utf-8?q?-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-34=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMM?= =?utf-8?q?ENT=29?= List-Id: Path Computation Element Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01DAF572.A911E4D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, John: =20 Considering to fall back the original version 34 may arise more chaos, I = reviewed the document over through again to evaluate the use of = =E2=80=9CSHOULD=E2=80=9D, or =E2=80=9CMUST=E2=80=9D in each previous = =E2=80=9Cshould=E2=80=9D occurrence. As I replied to Roman, I have = updated accordingly the document to reflect the necessity of each = procedure, guideline etc. Please review the updated document later for further comments. =20 I have responded also the comments from Zahed, and Dhruv gave also some = suggestions.=20 If you and Zahed agree with Dhruv=E2=80=99s recommendations, I will = update and upload the document accordingly for the expert=E2=80=99s = further review. =20 Best Regards =20 Aijun Wang China Telecom =20 =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: John Scudder [mailto:jgs@juniper.net]=20 =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2024=E5=B9=B48=E6=9C=8823=E6=97=A5 = 0:15 =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Aijun Wang =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: Roman Danyliw ; Dhruv Dhody = ; The IESG ; = draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org; pce-chairs = ; pce@ietf.org =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on = draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-34: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) =20 Hi Aijun,=20 =20 Thanks for the quick turnaround. =20 I didn=E2=80=99t have time to do a full review but I notice you appear = to have done a global search-and-replace of =E2=80=9Cshould=E2=80=9D = with =E2=80=9CSHOULD=E2=80=9D. This has led to a new problem; Roman = dropped his old DISCUSS (thanks for that) but entered a new one based on = the new use of SHOULD.=20 =20 I imagine a review comment triggered the global replacement. I = haven=E2=80=99t found the comment, however I doubt the ask was to do a = global replacement! I suggest reverting the global change, which would = (I believe) fix Roman=E2=80=99s new DISCUSS. Then we can consider if = there is a need for other should/SHOULD changes on a case-by-case basis. = If you agree to revert the should/SHOULD change, I encourage you to = publish the new version right away; I would rather review the 34->36 = diff than the rather noisy 34->35 diff. =20 On a related topic, Zahed=E2=80=99s COMMENT asks about two SHOULD = clauses in the 34 version (i.e. they are not affected by the global = change). I=E2=80=99m not sure what your answer is, but I suggest = changing those two to MUST unless you think there is some reason not to = (in which case please help us understand). =20 Thanks! =20 =E2=80=94John=20 On Aug 22, 2024, at 4:41=E2=80=AFAM, Aijun Wang = > wrote: =20 =20 Hi, Roman, John and Dhruv: =20 I have updated the document according to your following suggestions: 1) Add the normative reference to draft-ietf-pce-iana-update, as = John suggested. Wish we can forward = =E2=80=9Cdraft-ietf-pce-iana-update=E2=80=9D in fast track. 2) Add the suggested descriptions from Dhruv for the = =E2=80=9CExperimental Status=E2=80=9D of this document as one new = subsection =E2=80=9Csection 2.2 Experimental Status = Consideration=E2=80=9D =20 I will upload the updated document later, together with other = expert=E2=80=99s review. Thanks all your efforts for the suggestions! =20 =20 Best Regards =20 Aijun Wang China Telecom =20 =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: = forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org [ = mailto:forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org] =E4=BB=A3=E8=A1=A8 Roman Danyliw =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2024=E5=B9=B48=E6=9C=8822=E6=97=A5 = 8:50 =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: John Scudder < = jgs@juniper.net>; Dhruv Dhody < = dd@dhruvdhody.com> =E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: The IESG < iesg@ietf.org>; = = draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org; pce-chairs < = pce-chairs@ietf.org>; = pce@ietf.org =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: [Pce] Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on = draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-34: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) =20 Hi! =20 From: John Scudder < jgs@juniper.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 8:37 PM To: Dhruv Dhody < dd@dhruvdhody.com>; Roman = Danyliw < rdd@cert.org> Cc: The IESG < iesg@ietf.org>; = = draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org; pce-chairs < = pce-chairs@ietf.org>; = pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on = draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-34: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) =20 =09 Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless = you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. =20 Hi All, =20 On Aug 20, 2024, at 3:21=E2=80=AFPM, John Scudder < = jgs@juniper.net> wrote: =20 To add to what Dhruv wrote, =20 On Aug 20, 2024, at 1:16=E2=80=AFPM, Dhruv Dhody < = dd@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: =20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Section 14.2. 14.2. PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's Flag field [RFC9050] created a sub-registry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the value of the PCECC- CAPABILITY sub-TLV's 32-bit Flag field. IANA is requested to allocate a new bit position within this registry, as follows: The registration policy of PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV ( = = https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcecc-capability) is =E2=80=9CStandards Action=E2=80=9D. This document has experimental = status and does not qualify for registration. =20 Dhruv: We have a document in the PCE WG to fix it - = = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update/ The document is being fast tracked by the WG.=20 =20 Note that this code point has already been allocated through the = temporary allocation process and doesn=E2=80=99t expire until = 2025-08-14. I anticipate that draft-ietf-pce-iana-update will have been = progressed well before then, at which point the code point can be made = permanent. =20 It subsequently occurred to me that if = draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip adds a normative reference to = draft-ietf-pce-iana-update then we should be all set =E2=80=94 = draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip can enter the RFC Editor's queue = and they can start work on it, but those concerned about the = registration policy issue can rest assured that it won=E2=80=99t be = issued as an RFC until draft-ietf-pce-iana-update is also published = (it=E2=80=99ll be a cluster, because of the normative ref). Q.E.D., the = problem will be resolved by or before the time the RFC is issued. =20 Work for everyone?=20 =20 [Roman] Yes. That works for me. =20 Roman =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0088_01DAF572.A911E4D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

H= i, John:

<= o:p> 

C= onsidering to fall back the original version 34 may arise more chaos, I = reviewed the document over through again to evaluate the use of = =E2=80=9CSHOULD=E2=80=9D, or =E2=80=9CMUST=E2=80=9D in each previous = =E2=80=9Cshould=E2=80=9D occurrence.=C2=A0 As I replied to Roman, I have = updated accordingly the document to reflect the necessity of each = procedure, guideline etc.

P= lease review the updated document later for further = comments.

<= o:p> 

I= have responded also the comments from Zahed, and Dhruv gave also some = suggestions.

I= f you and Zahed agree with Dhruv=E2=80=99s recommendations, I will = update and upload the document accordingly for the expert=E2=80=99s = further review.

<= o:p> 

B= est Regards

<= o:p> 

A= ijun Wang

C= hina Telecom

<= o:p> 

=E5=8F=91=E4=BB= =B6=E4=BA=BA: John Scudder = [mailto:jgs@juniper.net]
=E5=8F=91=E9=80= =81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: = 2024=E5=B9=B48=E6=9C=8823=E6=97=A5 0:15
=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: Aijun Wang = <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
=E6=8A=84=E9=80=81: Roman Danyliw = <rdd@cert.org>; Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>; The IESG = <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org; = pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>; = pce@ietf.org
=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's = Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-34: (with DISCUSS and = COMMENT)

 

Hi Aijun, =

 

Thanks for the quick = turnaround.

 

I didn=E2=80=99t have time to do a = full review but I notice you appear to have done a global = search-and-replace of =E2=80=9Cshould=E2=80=9D with = =E2=80=9CSHOULD=E2=80=9D. This has led to a new problem; Roman dropped = his old DISCUSS (thanks for that) but entered a new one based on the new = use of SHOULD. 

 

I imagine a review comment = triggered the global replacement. I haven=E2=80=99t found the comment, = however I doubt the ask was to do a global replacement! I suggest = reverting the global change, which would (I believe) fix Roman=E2=80=99s = new DISCUSS. Then we can consider if there is a need for other = should/SHOULD changes on a case-by-case basis. If you agree to revert = the should/SHOULD change, I encourage you to publish the new version = right away; I would rather review the 34->36 diff than the rather = noisy 34->35 diff.

 

On a related topic, Zahed=E2=80=99s = COMMENT asks about two SHOULD clauses in the 34 version (i.e. they are = not affected by the global change). I=E2=80=99m not sure what your = answer is, but I suggest changing those two to MUST unless you think = there is some reason not to (in which case please help us = understand).

 

Thanks!

 

=E2=80=94John 



On Aug 22, 2024, at = 4:41=E2=80=AFAM, Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn&g= t; wrote:

 

 <= /o:p>

H= i, Roman, John and Dhruv:

&= nbsp;

I= have updated the document according to your following = suggestions:

1= )     A= dd the normative reference to draft-ietf-pce-iana-update, as John = suggested.  Wish we can forward =E2= =80=9Cdraft-ietf-pce-iana-update=E2=80=9D in fast track.

2= )     A= dd the suggested descriptions from Dhruv for the =E2= =80=9CExperimental Status=E2=80=9D  of this document as one new subsection = =E2=80=9Csection 2.2 Experimental Status = Consideration=E2=80=9D

&= nbsp;

I= will upload the updated document later, together with other = expert=E2= =80=99s review.

T= hanks all your efforts for the suggestions!

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

B= est Regards

&= nbsp;

A= ijun Wang

C= hina Telecom

&= nbsp;

=E5=8F=91=E4=BB= =B6=E4=BA=BA: forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgorithm@ietf.org] =E4=BB=A3=E8=A1= =A8 Roman = Danyliw
=E5=8F=91=E9=80= =81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: 2024=E5=B9=B48=E6=9C=8822=E6=97=A5 8:50
=E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>; Dhruv Dhody = <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
=E6=8A= =84=E9=80=81: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org; pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>; pce@ietf.org
=E4=B8=BB=E9=A2= =98: [Pce] Re: Roman = Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-34: (with = DISCUSS and COMMENT)

 

Hi!

 

From:<= /b> = John Scudder = <jgs@juniper.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 = 8:37 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>; Roman Danyliw = <rdd@cert.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip@ietf.org; pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>;pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's = Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-34: (with DISCUSS and = COMMENT)

 

Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you = recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

 

Hi = All,

 

On Aug 20, = 2024, at 3:21=E2=80=AFPM, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> = wrote:

 

To add to = what Dhruv wrote,

 

On Aug 20, = 2024, at 1:16=E2=80=AFPM, Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> = wrote:

 


--------= --------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS= :
--------------------------------------------------------------------= --

** Section 14.2.

14.2.  PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV's = Flag field

   [RFC9050] created a sub-registry within = the "Path Computation Element
   Protocol (PCEP) = Numbers" registry to manage the value of the PCECC-
  =  CAPABILITY sub-TLV's 32-bit Flag field.  IANA is requested = to
   allocate a new bit position within this registry, as = follows:

The registration policy of PCECC-CAPABILITY = sub-TLV
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#p= cecc-capability) is
=E2=80=9CStandards = Action=E2=80=9D.  This document has experimental status and does = not qualify
for registration.

 

Dhruv: We have a document in the PCE WG to = fix it -  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-ia= na-update/

The document is being fast tracked by the = WG. 

 

Note that = this code point has already been allocated through the temporary = allocation process and doesn=E2=80=99t expire until 2025-08-14. I = anticipate that draft-ietf-pce-iana-update will have been = progressed well before then, at which point the code point can be made = permanent.

 

It = subsequently occurred to me that if = draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip adds a normative reference = to draft-ietf-pce-iana-update then we should be all set =E2=80=94 = draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip can enter the RFC Editor's queue = and they can start work on it, but those concerned about the = registration policy issue can rest assured that it won=E2=80=99t be = issued as an RFC until draft-ietf-pce-iana-update is also published = (it=E2=80=99ll be a cluster, because of the normative ref). Q.E.D., the = problem will be resolved by or before the time the RFC is = issued.

 

Work for = everyone? 

 

[Roman] = Yes.  That works for me.

 

Roman

 

------=_NextPart_000_0088_01DAF572.A911E4D0--