IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 30 September 2019 11:29 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.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 C6AD4120227; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hg1NoI8gnJA3; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (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 E7CCB12021D; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id a1so37309813ioc.6; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=B496awp7uhA7dzFvZcbWcP0+7imwqavxLfRZ2e9aLhQ=; b=Q5seJJU0vSqh9ju1yW7gMDbnGSR/9Lnoe5xR2XmUNlKhY+zQr2+hQDj9suMUKJEc6k XYDm0HCmLVYT0z8ukadlT3XoIz3rnoAy9qM9RUR0Wmj+aiBq8WWVYMG0qrXspT8EHoGi m5yFwZ5LHTT4R5mCCMaGJs2UzXVXTbCyP3sNRe2AtVhCJpTSbucDu3CK3GqFNz/I4hQ8 0jMjqi3TkStwM1aSJlvRRAv+B7pwhpS4E5RhkfrbGDpzbGIHjIy6oruz+NO8Rck1mPjQ nQ63m/+8rFZioJJHn0zebz9u1JENKUy7nb5NyhVP0W2mhWliuezLcFth5sZCUIKT00XB 5aFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=B496awp7uhA7dzFvZcbWcP0+7imwqavxLfRZ2e9aLhQ=; b=gudZpWU5WNV9z/C6+b4P8mK53mIbzk2b0DSAc2Y4/XcyansLvKJKlwq7Me5Vbv6qm8 jAXjYSm0gJQXU0zH2tvUevOScbpek7nvmvMoBm0SKn6JdTR41AZb1TfXYKQkuHj2GWbz WC+50tkVJv+WULxgD7uBiFebhADjH71XTvWtKjmMXMNaWwdvkcN/gb+tU3IFfwkMcewg GEkb2uiuVPJfaAJMrcVos3t1eiQUZxqSvbBllAAU21U8LZImwSL6yMnWnudXqWQNrByA L31s2U/1IsVqAA9DhAGLFxMX8dHvUySBHTrvf/lIbvCjj35UUvFE5IB8yyjND6F+PnV6 t1ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXwMDXcXEaZzz5EME/2j+D5dWMdauB0IJH1AIYTS/s2XBE411tm FPIcZHdgFMFFzSDdH7I8qJnKXbH0DqNh9DyUP4Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxE0khtc7O6YbwstqUW1c5TxopiTkuY8vuuYgDBds/q26gWqdcvm5V9WcmuxTcJCLi2LgUv3CDRMkoLE/Xv3jQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:3:: with SMTP id z3mr13692857jao.54.1569842996108; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 04:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156947917508.29034.2649004397929023444.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <156947917508.29034.2649004397929023444.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 16:59:19 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn4dFO1QRb1zmDiUitHYjtqfce+DscBbVSMbi7YF=Ac9EA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request@ietf.org, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com>, pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/rYrQ_yNW6xBcmULDqT53wp9F1nI>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)
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, 30 Sep 2019 11:29:59 -0000

Hi Barry,

Thanks for your review. Snipping to just one point -

> — Section 4 —
>
>    The D Flag and C
>    Flag are mutually exclusive in PCUpd message.  The PCE SHOULD NOT
>    send control request for LSP which is already delegated to the PCE,
>    i.e. if the D Flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C Flag SHOULD
>    NOT be set.
>
> I’m confused: “mutually exclusive” means that they can’t both be set.  So why
> SHOULD NOT and not MUST NOT?  (You’re also missing a few articles here: ”a
> PCUpd message”, “a control request”, “an LSP”, and “the C Flag”.
>

I think the reason for SHOULD NOT was because when a PCC receives this
- it would simply ignore it!
This did not rise to the level of error usual for MUST NOT!

If you feel that the above isn't a good enough reason, changing would
not cause any harm either.

Thanks!
Dhruv

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email