Hi, On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 2:19 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-21: Discuss > > 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-07 > > Thank you for the work put into this document. It is very specialised and > above > my expertise area. > > Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address, do not > panic > ;-) ), two non-blocking COMMENT points. > > Special thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the shepherd's detailed write-up > including > the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. > > Thanks Éric :) > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > # DISCUSS > > As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a > DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: > > ## Mismatch in meta-data & the content > > While the meta-data is about "standard track" the I-D itself says > "informational". The IETF Last Call has been done for "standard track", so > a > revised I-D is enough to address this DISCUSS. > > > Dhruv: Oops! In the last update -21, somehow the Intended Status changed. I should have caught that! Apologies! IMHO it is a case of an unintentional mistake. Authors would let me know if that's not the case! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ## Section 6.2.1 > > s/The TLV is extended with three flags to indicate/The specifcation add > three > flags to the flag field of this TLV to indicate/ > > Dhruv: Your suggestion makes a lot of sense! Thanks! > ## Section 9.1 > > Should the IANA be directed to use the MSB for this allocation ? > > Dhruv: Hmm. The general practice in PCEP is to start allocation from LSB - https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#stateful-pce-capability-tlv-flag-field https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#sr-capability-flag-field https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#h-pce-capability-tlv-flag-field https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcecc-capability IANA would follow the usual practice in the registry as well as confirm with the authors/chairs/AD at the time of making allocation. But no harm in making it explicit by - "IANA is requested to make allocations starting from the least significant bit (31)." Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
