Thanks for addressing my comments! Alvaro.
On December 19, 2019 at 11:14:40 AM, Mahend Negi (mahend.i...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi Alvaro, Thanks for the detailed review, all the comments are addressed in the new version. New version: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-13 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-13 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-13 Regards, Mahendra On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:56 AM Alvaro Retana via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12: 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-association-diversity/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > (1) §5.1: I-D.ietf-pce-association-group is not explicit about the > "capability > exchange mentioned in this piece of text: > > This capability exchange for the Disjointness > Association Type (TBD1) MUST be done before using the disjointness > association. Thus the PCEP speaker MUST include the Disjointness > Association Type in the ASSOC-Type-List TLV before using the Disjoint > Association Group (DAG) in PCEP messages. > > It seems to me that the exchange implies sending and receiving the > Assoc-type, > but then the second sentence implies sending to be enough. What is the > expected behavior? Please reword. > > (2) §5.2 says, while defining the T flag, says that "if disjoint paths > cannot > be found, PCE SHOULD return no path", but §5.6 reads: > > When the T flag is set (Strict disjointness requested), if > disjointness cannot be ensured for one or more LSPs, the PCE MUST > reply to a Path Computation Request (PCReq) with a Path Computation > Reply (PCRep) message containing a NO-PATH object. > > There is a conflict between the SHOULD and the MUST. > > (3) TBD1 is used with 3 different names: "Disjoint Association Type (DAT)", > "Disjointness Association Type" and "Disjoint-group Association". Please > be > consistent. > > (4) [nits] > > s/DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLVSection 5.2/DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV > (Section 5.2) > > s/SHOULD NOT try to add/SHOULD NOT add > > s/with example inA Section 5.5/with an example in Section 5.5 > > s/by Section 5.5either/by either > > s/Setting P flag/Setting the P flag > > s/case of network event/case of a network event > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
