[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
- [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding… julien.meuric
- Re: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-bin… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-bin… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-bin… julien.meuric
- Re: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-bin… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-bin… julien.meuric