Re: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-01

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

No objections to this document from me, and thanks to the author for the
diligence with which he checked the impact of this change. We can't see from the
outside whether enough of the "real implementers" responded, but they had their
chance and this last call is their last chance :-)

---

I think it would be helpful if the "update" to RFC 5440 was more anchored into
that document.

So...

The update is to section 7.12, yes?
The text in the last paragraph of your section 2 is to be considered part of the
spec, yes?
The text is intended to replace the last line of 5440/7.12 that currently says
   The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO.

I also think there is a bit of an over-use of "MUST" in...
   The content of an IRO object MUST be an ordered list of subobjects
   representing a series of abstract nodes.
Using "is" would be more appropriate. You could go "MUST be interpreted as", but
that also sounds excessive use of language.

---

In the Introduction you say
   During discussion of [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence] it was
   proposed to have a new IRO type with ordered nature, as well as
   handling of Loose bit (L bit).

This is completely true and indisputable. But appearing like this it raises more
questions than it answers. Either delete the paragraph or add some resolution
such as "however, with the update to RFC 5440 described in this document, no new
IRO type is needed."

---

Section 2 has

   A survey of the existing and planned implementations was conducted in
   order to discover the current state of affairs amongst
   implementations.  [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey] describe the
   questionnaire, results and presents some conclusions and proposed
   action items.  More details in Appendix A.

Having read App A I don't think it adds any more details to what is in the Intro
and in this paragraph.
You have the reference to the survey i-D (which will stay in the archives for
ever), so I suggest to delete the appendix and the pointer to it.

---

It looks to me that RFC 3209 is a normative reference since I must look there to
find out how to interpret the L bit.

Cheers,
Adrian


> This message initiates a 2-week WG last call on
> draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-01. Please send your comments to the PCE
> mailing list by Tuesday May 19.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> JP & Julien