Hi Julien, We have updated to document to address your comments, please check.
URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-09.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid/ Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-09 Only one comment left: - The paragraph about by-PCE allocation should say what happens otherwise, i.e. error behavior.(Section 8) I don't know what kind of error will happen, it seems not error will occur. Thanks for the deep review! Cheng -----Original Message----- From: Chengli (Cheng Li) Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 9:18 AM To: 'julien.meu...@orange.com' <julien.meu...@orange.com>; draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid Hi Julien， Many thanks for your comments! Will address the comments and then post the new revision for discussion ASAP. Respect, Cheng -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 1:47 AM To: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid 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 mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
