[RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-07.txt
Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 16 November 2022 20:10 UTC
Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.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 2A020C14CE2B; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 12:10:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.845
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.845 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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 JdzZC1rI611t; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 12:10:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62b.google.com (mail-ej1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5796EC14CE24; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 12:10:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id f18so13867988ejz.5; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 12:10:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Gis4SpyuW62KzPgzxZMYndLlKO8rPq1HARbZR0HtMCM=; b=JFbaD/vVYYAYqCO/mtmHJMJhKtPsZV+ugrYToJqomzwdG5Lgi8/Wkyw3p7AncTHFpM ewUOa4gjmSe2UwAfHIu4OH4UOCIc3O3an3sFp4uvVz9pBuHIF+F7YL8nxfqDsECeAepB AzGnBITcWhRhd5Tm0GzcIlgGMMobnf6J9E1qoqLDD4TMXzwFLnvMMWwW0jrpxaaGd9bh sgAVmqkUn3HpJT6GruSrwCIONnnwdhqNT/6EQ0pfxLDJcGudD74wGQ2OHaAeYwyU7/mG szx+u0HZpzc5Ew109OvaM0lAAuYsowfrAMLSkQ0rHc3yVkJQPfYjxwYdkmQQKNQdApaK 6P5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Gis4SpyuW62KzPgzxZMYndLlKO8rPq1HARbZR0HtMCM=; b=sZlD7WTpoICQwvxG4JIOtQME6uIka10kjuSFbsQEmVJkxDGdd8Yy3jgwd1eAimrvy+ aycjPv88hBM4eLseWLtpIyGW6S1xCoUVMmg8gLd/O7Zi5Ln2tf+7GMfzH4hRFYGO6hrq K6Ud2vEHn4srEC+6CxgSiiKysmHJBxSOlzpXTQIbEShWklFdbT0fJmtFOuXn7OlUKqCJ dJajtVbzVsYCNqsCBnITtcJQZCNOtt/cDo+xNR/adwCu4oXUxsg/kgKlbVPVjzh3lE6Q Vw99v42XTXX6RCPQJolA/r+JKlpOUxLCfwV5ZDE0HSd3aKr0mdLKHNQ1kKB/Mxo3DsNY GSJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plJqaxb010VoG5PqcbwzcFXH+TyVeO0YYt9bnJgqfKn7nI6yMVD uGbn+xN6tY8rI8Y0tMAgR1aZ4yQ+x3IfI566uvvBs/8pOR8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5S6Uz8wuoQ8VqWOlQA2RCg8O/MOZT7bP5z/7bv0oaiEZnLrt67PFQAg9Aj4M54cx0X7Vl7YDT35wO2XvM/gZY=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:e2c4:b0:7ad:dfb5:a3f2 with SMTP id gr4-20020a170906e2c400b007addfb5a3f2mr18696010ejb.351.1668629429869; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 12:10:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 15:10:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEEg=OWDEQ+G=JwZkuMG_zycig06gwRh58277VgA_B1Yxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: pce-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement.all@ietf.org
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Otr_2TL-qS0p7mOBiMOTvsosAVA>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-07.txt
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: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 20:10:36 -0000
Hello, I have been selected to do a routing directorate "early" review of this draft. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-07 Reviewer: Donald Eastlake 3rd Review Date: 16 November 2022 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: Has Nits. Comments: This is a straightforward document specifying an "Enforcement" bit in the PCEP LSP Attributes Object. This bit operates in conjunction with the previously specified L (Local Protection Desired) bit to clarify the extent to which local protection is required / desired / undesired / prohibited in the path being determined. Appropriate backwards compatibility considerations are included. Major Issues: No Major issues. Minor Issues: No Minor technical issues but has nits. Nits: Section 2: Need to be updated as per RFC 8174. Section 5, Page 6: Drafts should be written as definite specifications, not as proposals. It will not be useful to say this has an "early allocation" when this is published as an RFC. OLD A new flag is proposed in this document in the LSP Attributes Object which extends the L flag to identify the protection enforcement. Bit 6 has been early allocated by IANA as the Protection Enforcement flag. NEW A Protection Enforcement flag "E" is specified below, extending the L flag. RFC Editor Note: The text below assumes the E bit remains the early allocation value 6. Please adjust if this changes and remove this note before publication. Trivia / Editorial Suggestions: Section 1, Page 3: re "so therefore" I suggest you pick one of these two words and drop the other. Add comma: "router processing the SID such as" -> "router processing the SID, such as" Section 3: Suggest adding entries for the following: LSPA Section 4.1, Page 4, 2nd line: "PCEP is with the" -> "PCEP is the" Section 4.2, Page 5, 1st paragraph: "The boolean bit flag" -> "The boolean bit L flag" "The selection for" -> "Selecting" Section 4.2, Page 5, 2nd paragraph: "if there is anywhere along the path that traffic will be fast re-routed at the point of failure" -> "if there is a failure anywhere along the path that traffic will be fast re-routed at that point" Section 4.2, Page 5, 3rd paragraph: "rather local failures to cause" -> "rather local failures cause" "(ex: insufficient bandwidth)" -> "(e.g., insufficient bandwidth)" "resulting for the LSP to be torn down" -> "resulting in the LSP being torn down" Section 4.2, Page 6: "to instruct the PCE a preference" -> "to give the PCE a preference" Section 5, Page 7: "criteria however the" -> "criteria; however, the" "should interpret and behave when" -> "should behave when" Section 5, Page 8: (twice) "It is RECOMMENDED for a PCE to assume" -> "It is RECOMMENDED that a PCE assume" "ignore the E flag thus it" -> "ignore the E flag. Thus, it" Section 8: Since there is only one subsection of Section 8, the "Section 8.1" subheading should be deleted. When published, this will no longer be an "I-D" so the Reference should be changed from "I-D" to "[this document]". Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com,
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: draft-ietf-pce-loc… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: draft-ietf-pce… Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: draft-ietf-pce… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early Review: draft-ietf-pce… Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)