[Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid

julien.meuric@orange.com Fri, 28 May 2021 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.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 598B23A2FDB; Fri, 28 May 2021 10:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.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 4Z_oBTJMfp_k; Fri, 28 May 2021 10:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (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 3FAF83A2FDD; Fri, 28 May 2021 10:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.69]) by opfednr27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4FsBw908Dnz50rq; Fri, 28 May 2021 19:47:21 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1622224041; bh=iovmYKY3uRsqz9tp/WjIKSZ9F+iyW+Num3URfU5w9Co=; h=From:Subject:To:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=aBoL/xn5EZiN7wf44zB/oyf0ftTSZ5KwfINH4QLveuZm+ROvjJ/549shAvR7AOTUI 7lkWS9PX7snMlOP4zX6c6wOkcnyRRx2eGb84zVx+lwhkCLszNabSaUfjlXrW2VkgOz 3YdhbcuJDXAXhU8sDQvIbLhi7NN76E8j0u7fSvc/KQA3j3pyAA2CLWkI+KINtSzKN9 JmE4DUIL7D6qTBNLonpYsysHTc+GUvuD39Q7Yq98kPZc5Yo6u9OOjxijfnHiwFcNmM z6D5vwW73McpGE+4wVh6HKaqzVUA5BhvtNPnlIjGevuGo9WQhmcyHV1VN3pPz+XZve XhE3EDQE8jStQ==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.82]) by opfednr05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4FsBw86YMjzyQ7; Fri, 28 May 2021 19:47:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.192.147.5] (10.114.13.247) by exchange-eme6.itn.ftgroup (10.114.13.82) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.498.0; Fri, 28 May 2021 19:47:20 +0200
From: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Organization: Orange
To: <draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org>
CC: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1fac71ae-2c0b-d0ab-2829-12f45b2c54e9@orange.com>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 19:47:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms050001070007000503020501"
X-Originating-IP: [10.114.13.247]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/vTfHvUQZ6QEO8JqNhxnJocsKYiY>
Subject: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid
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: Fri, 28 May 2021 17:47:35 -0000

Dear authors,

Please find below the review of the aforementioned document.

_Summary_
The document looks ready for publication, but the fixes below should be
considered.

_Issues_
None.

_Nits_
------
Abstract
---
- The phrase "network opacity" feels like a negative objective. How
about "network confidentiality"?
- s/RSVP-TE signaled Traffic/RSVP-TE-signaled Traffic/
- s/Label Switching Path/Label Switched Path/

------
1. Introduction
---
- s/either set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment
Routing/set up using either the RSVP-TE signaling protocol or Segment
Routing/
- s/headend node/head-end node/  [x2, for consistency along the I-D]
- s/an Segment Routing Policy/a Segment Routing Policy/
- s/an Segment Routed (SR) Policy/a Segment Routing (SR) Policy/
- s/enables instantiation/enables the instantiation/
- s/type of interfaces or tunnel/type of interface or tunnel/
- s/SID-list/SID list/
- s/Path Computation Element Protocol/PCE communication Protocol/
- s/a network controller (acting as a PCE) /a PCE (acting as a network
controller)/
- s/SID allocated by it/SID it allocated/
OLD
   A PCC could report the binding label/SID allocated by it to the
   stateful PCE via Path Computation State Report (PCRpt) message.
NEW
   A PCC could report to the stateful PCE the binding label/SID it
   allocated via a Path Computation LSP State Report (PCRpt) message.

- s/Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd) message/Path Computation LSP
Update Request (PCUpd) message/
- s/an MPLS label or SID/an MPLS label or a SID/
- s/PCE based/PCE-based/

------
3. Terminology
---
- "TLV" is flagged as "well know" in the RFC Editor's list
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt): it can
safely be removed from this section (otherwise, it should have been
expanded at 1st occurrence in the introduction).
- "PCE" is similarly flagged, but PCC and PCEP aren't, so it can be kept
(adding a period at the end of the line).
- s/Path Computation Element Protocol/Path Computation Element
communication Protocol/

------
4. Path Binding TLV
---
- s/TLV is called/TLV called/
- Since it's already allocated, Figure 2 may include the codepoint, i.e.
"Type = 55".
- s/TLV comprise of:/TLV comprises:/
- s/and first 20 bits/and the first 20 bits/
- s/a 16 octet IPv6 address/a 16-octet IPv6 address/
- s/Note that, multiple/Note that multiple/
- s/Following flag/The following flag/
- s/For the BT as 0/When the BT is 0/  [idem w/ 1 and 2]
- s/the 32-bits represent/the 32 bits represent/
- s/the 128-bits represent/the 128 bits represent/
- s/This section specify/This section specifies/
- s/The Binding Value consist of/The Binding Value consists of/
- s/The 128-bits IPv6 address/The 128-bit IPv6 address/

------
5. Operation
---
- s/via PCRpt message/via a PCRpt message/
- s/send PCErr with/send a PCErr with/
- s/existing instances/the existing instances/
- s/the old binding value/the former binding value/
- s/the old TE-PATH-BINDING TLV/the former TE-PATH-BINDING TLV/
- s/Note that, other instances/Note that other instances/
- s/a specific binding value(s)/a (or several) specific binding value(s)
- s/Note that in case of an error,/Note that, in case of an error,/
- s/can carry/can include/
- s/request withdrawal/request the withdrawal/  [x2]
- s/the old binding value/the former binding value/
- s/the old TE-PATH-BINDING TLV/the former TE-PATH-BINDING TLV/
- s/making the length field of the TLV as 4/bringing the Length field of
the TLV to 4/
- s/request PCC/request a PCC/

------
8. PCE Allocation of Binding label/SID
---
- s/on its own accord/of its own accord/  [x2]
- s/A PCC would set this bit/A PCC MUST set this bit/
- s/A PCE would set this bit/A PCE MUST set this bit/
- s/towards PCC/towards the PCC/
- s/a PCE would set this bit to 0/a PCE MUST set this bit to 0/
- s/a PCE could set/a PCE MUST set/

- OLD
A PCC could request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID by
setting P=1, D=1, and including...
  NEW
To request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID, a PCC MUST set
P=1, D=1, and include...

- s/The PCE would allocate/The PCE SHOULD allocate/
- The paragraph about by-PCE allocation should say what happens
otherwise, i.e. error behavior.
- s/out of scope of/out of the scope of/

------
9. Implementation Status
---
- Huawei: "An experimental code-point is used and plan to request early
code-point allocation from IANA after WG adoption." If the
implementation doesn't use the early allocated code point, I wonder if
it was worth the effort.
- Cisco: "An experimental code-point is currently used." Currently in
April 2021? Same comment as above.

------
11. Manageability Considerations
---
- s/the policy based on which PCC needs to allocates /the policy the PCC
needs to apply when allocating/
- s/Mechanisms defined/ The mechanisms defined/  [x4]
- s/to PCEP extensions defined/to the PCEP extensions defined/

------
12. IANA Considerations
---
- The new Error-Type entry should include Error-value 0 as Unassigned.

------
14. References
---
- When reading section 7, draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6 really
felt like a normative reference: it should be moved to section 14.1.

------


Cheers,

Julien