Hi Adian,
Many thanks for your comprehensive and helpful review.
We have just published the new version draft-chen-pce-bier-te-00，which include
all your comments.
Since the name of the draft has been updated based on the opinions of Jeffery
and Nils, it needs to be reviewed by the chairman before it can be seen on the
IETF page. Please check back later.
Please, See inline for detailed response...
Original
From: AdrianFarrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <d...@dhruvdhody.com>;pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>;
Cc: draft-chen-pce-b...@ietf.org <draft-chen-pce-b...@ietf.org>;
Date: 2023年09月29日 05:45
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Hi,
I have no objection to the working group taking on this draft although
I suspect that the community of interest is quite small, so there is
some concern about proper review and WG consensus. Hopefully this
adoption poll will secure a few promises of future review.
A few editorial points, below.
Cheers,
Adrian
===
Can we please get out of the habit of bring drafts up for adoption with
more than five authors on the front page. They will never get as far as
RFCs like that, and it seems unreasonable to ask the working group
chairs to appoint document editors after adoption - the authors should
sort this out for themselves.
[Ran]: Sure. We will communicate with the authors. Since China is on National
Day holiday, so can we deal with it later?
---
Please run idnits and clean up the document. It would have been easy to
do this before requesting adoption.
[Ran] Done.
---
Please use the correct boilerplate in Section 2.
[Ran] Done.
---
Section 3 has
BIER-TE computed by a PCE can be represented in the
following forms:
but then there is only one form shown.
[Ran] Done. Changed to : BIER-TE computed by a PCE can be represented as:
The previous version defined three forms, but after discussion, only one was
retained.
---
Several of the new TLVs etc. have bit-flag fields with bits defined.
Please consider whether you need to ask IANA to create registries to
track further bit assignments. If you don't need registries, why do
you need whole fields?
[Ran] Done. Already applied for iana allocation for bits.
---
6.2
You should give some clues about the value of the Length field since you
know what values it might have. Also, I presume that the Length field
could tell you a lot about the BFR prefix.
But, also, you say it is one octet, and you show it as 16 bits.
[Ran] Done. Changed to 2 octet. Consistent with the type and length of other
TLVs of the LSP objet.
---
6.2
If the tunnel identifier is 11 or 23 octets then the TLV is not a
multiple of 4 (which is usually the case for PCEP TLVs). Is it padded
or what?
[Ran] Done. Added padding field.
---
6.3
In order to setup an BIER-TE, a new PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV MUST be
contained in RP/SRP object.
Not sure that this document is needed to set up anything with BIER-TE.
It is just something that you can use.
[Ran]: It can easily identify that the path that needs to be established is a
BIER-TE path.
Similar to SR, SRv6 defines new PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV contained in RP/SRP object.
---
6.6
Could you abbreviate "ERO Object" as EROO? ;-)
[Ran] Done.
---
6.6.1
The definition of "Adjacency BitString" seems to indicate that any
number of bits can be present. But the description of "Length" says that
the TLV length must be a multiple of 4 octets. How is the TLV padded?
[Ran] The TLV is added the "Reserved" field to pad.
How does someone reading the TLV know where the bit string stops?
[Ran] Done. Added some descriptions about the relationship between BSL and
bitstring.
If k is the length of the BitString, the value of BitStringLen is log2(k)-5.
However, only
certain values are supported:
* 1: 64 bits
* 2: 128 bits
* 3: 256 bits
* 4: 512 bits
* 5: 1024 bits
---
Section 6.7 has same issues as 6.6
---
Is Section 8 correct? It says:
IANA has registered the code points for the protocol elements defined
in this document.
But I don't think those have been registered.
[Ran] Sorry, typo, updated
From: Pce <pce-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 25 September 2023 17:49
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-chen-pce-b...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-bier-11
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-bier-11.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-bier/
Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why /
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
Please respond by Monday 9th Oct 2023.
Please be more vocal during WG polls!
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
