[RTG-DIR] 答复: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-19
Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com> Mon, 27 June 2022 07:48 UTC
Return-Path: <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F7CC157B57; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 00:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j1wviVO4FcMS; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 00:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A43C14F606; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 00:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LWfrh6Y77z67N5b; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:44:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from canpemm100010.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.38) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:48:52 +0200
Received: from canpemm500009.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.203) by canpemm100010.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:48:50 +0800
Received: from canpemm500009.china.huawei.com ([7.192.105.203]) by canpemm500009.china.huawei.com ([7.192.105.203]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:48:50 +0800
From: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls.all@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-19
Thread-Index: AQHYhpqJEWYh9k6ThUCkqQR2DvsS861i5qOg
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 07:48:50 +0000
Message-ID: <945769e53f3f42afbcdc05c05140a9f4@huawei.com>
References: <165594509970.34815.588574046224953480@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <165594509970.34815.588574046224953480@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.24.176.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/HqsQgkdbZXs15K045Y-juP28JwY>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] 答复: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-19
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 07:48:58 -0000
Hi Susan, Thank you very much for the detailed review and comments. We updated the draft to -20, integrating your comments and the chair review comments from Julien (reference to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/nOJz-l-3eSvYwLutEAbqcfJXrv0/ ). Please let us know if you have any additional comments, thanks. Best wishes, Haomian (on behalf of authors & contributors) -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Susan Hares via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org] 发送时间: 2022年6月23日 8:45 收件人: rtg-dir@ietf.org 抄送: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls.all@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org 主题: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-19 Reviewer: Susan Hares Review result: Has Nits Reviewer: Susan Hares Status: Has nits Technical nits: 1. page 6, section 6.2.2 last paragraph in section. line/Note that this XRO Sub-object could also be used by non-GMPLS LSPs./ Please either describe its intended use in non-GMPLS LSPs or indicate the description of the use is out of scope for this document. 2. Section 10.2 I realize you indicate that draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang can be expanded to cover the features in this document. The IESG wants to know that whether: a) the expansion underway (if so, in what draft), b) the expansion is part of WG planned work but not yet started, c) not useful. I think you are stating #b. Please work with Dhruv to gain the appropriate clarity for the IESG. One question that yang model raises is when to use the Yang model and when to use PCEP. Editorial Nits: 1. page: 5, section 3 Old/ The PCE-Initiated LSP would follow the principle specified in [RFC8281], and GMPLS-specific extensions are also included in this document./ New/ The PCE-Initiated LSP follow the principles specified in [RFC8281] and the GMPLS-specific extensions are also included in this document./ 2. page 6, section 5.1, paragraph 1, last sentence Old/New bits, LSP- REPORT-CAPABILITY(TBDa), LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY (TBD1), and LSP- INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY (TBD2), are introduced in the GMPLS- CAPABILITY TLV as flags to indicate the capability for LSP report, update and initiation in GMPLS networks./ New:/ The following bits are introduced by this document in the GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV as flags to indicate the capability for LSP report, update and initiation in GMPLS networks: LSP-REPORT-CAPABILITY(TBDa), LSP-UPDATE-CAPABILITY (TBD1), and LSP-INSTANTIATION-CAPABILITY (TBD2)./ 3. page 10, section 6.2.2 Old/X bit is defined in [RFC5521]/ New/X bit is defined in [RFC5521 in section 2.1.1/ 4. page 11 section 7 paragraph 1 Old/In this document the following error handling procedures are introduced. All the error handling specified in section 3 of [RFC8779] is applicable and MUST be supported for stateful PCE in GMPLS networks./ New /This section add the additional error handling procedures to the error handling specified in section 3 of [RFC8779]. Please note that all error handling specified in section 3 of [RFC8779] is applicable and MUST be supported for stateful PCE in GMPLS networks./ 5. General comment on text for section 7.1 Consider reviewing the text to see if a compression of the text will make it more readable. It is correct, but difficult to follow. 6. Section 10, p.age 16 introductory paragraph. Old/ In this document the management considerations for stateful PCEP extension in GMPLS are described./ New/ This section describes the management considerations for stateful PCEP extensions in GMPLS./ 7. Section 11, paragraph 2. Old/ Additional security issues incurred due to the new extensions in [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] and possible solutions are needed to support for the new stateful PCE capabilities./ New/Security issues caused by the extension in [RFC8231] and RFC8281] are not altered by the additions in this draft./
- [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-p… Susan Hares via Datatracker
- [RTG-DIR] 答复: Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-p… Zhenghaomian