Re: [Pce] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Thu, 31 August 2017 06:34 UTC
Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.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 CF6A413218F; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 e-AerC1Te2Ym; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6B8013201E; Wed, 30 Aug 2017 23:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DUM62675; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:34:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML702-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.171) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 07:34:14 +0100
Received: from BLREML501-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.198]) by blreml702-cah.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 12:04:06 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTITquhjm2t0n1nEOqbdGjSAFG6qKd8Qxw
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:34:05 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CBBD62A@blreml501-mbx>
References: <150406137377.21533.7771156035625566886.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <150406137377.21533.7771156035625566886.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.59A7ADE8.009D, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 2fbcb66a6088161bca32cd425277419f
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/wGvHsIfyVZoYGKEfK-Zc3oFpCNY>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:34:21 -0000
Hi Adam, > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adam Roach > Sent: 30 August 2017 08:20 > To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: > (with COMMENT) > > Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I have only reviewed the diffs from RFC6006 (Perhaps we should request > tools support for bis document diffs): > <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://www.rfc- > editor.org/rfc/rfc6006.txt&url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03> > > The instructions in section 6.5 only indicate that IANA should update the > document reference. The changes indicated in this section additionally > reserve new values (specifically, the object type of "0" for object > classes 28-31). As these changes are not called out, they run the risk of > being overlooked. Please update the instructions to IANA to indicate that > the registered values have changed, not just the document references. > [[Dhruv Dhody]] The Object-Type 0 is already marked in the PCEP IANA registry [1] as "reserved", as part of an earlier Errata [2]. But you are correct, that the text should be updated to reflect this. I have made this change - Also, for the following four PCEP objects, the code-point 0 for the Object-Type field are marked "Reserved" with reference to Errata ID 4956. IANA is requested to update the reference to point to this document. Is that okay? [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4956 Thanks! Dhruv > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce