Re: [Pce] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-10: (with COMMENT)
Nice collection of nits, Erik. Thanks. Will attend to them when the next version comes out. Best, Adrian -Original Message- From: Erik Kline via Datatracker Sent: 23 August 2020 02:28 To: The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; Julien Meuric ; julien.meu...@orange.com Subject: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-10: (with COMMENT) Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-10: 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-pcep-flowspec/ -- COMMENT: -- [ section 2 ] * "a flag is provided to indicate that the sender of a PCEP message that includes a Flow Specification is intended to be installed as a Longest Prefix Match route, or..." This didn't scan too well for me. It seems the subject is the sender as written, but perhaps the message itself is the thing that "is intended to be installed..."? Oh, perhaps this is what's meant: "a flag is provided to indicate that the sender of a PCEP message that includes a Flow Specification intends it to be installed as a Longest Prefix Match route or as a Flow Specification policy." [ section 5 ] * Is it well-known whether multibyte numeric fields are network endian or not? [ section 6 ] * "The TLVs follows" -> "The TLVs follow", I think [ section 7 ] * "carries one or more ... TLV" -> "...TLVs." * "defines following new types" -> "defines the following new types" * Purely out of curiosity, if either S=1 or G=1 can/should it be specified that the source/group addresses simply not be included (i.e. the bits indicate not only that the field is not examined but that it's not inclued)? [ section 7.1 ] * "carries one or more ... TLV" -> "...TLVs." [ section 8.4 ] * "will be place on a single tunnel" -> "will be placed into a single tunnel" perhaps? [ section 8.7 ] * Recommend splitting up the long sentence with ", however" -> ". However, ..." * "if the Flow Specification make" -> "if the Flow Specifications make"? * Maybe I've lost too much mental state between readings, but the final paragraph, as written, makes me wonder how a FlowSpec gets installed in the first place. I assume I'm missing something in my naive reading. =) ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-10: (with COMMENT)
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 6:32 AM Adrian Farrel wrote: > Nice collection of nits, Erik. Thanks. > At best, it's really all I'm good for. =) ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller
Hi Julien, I support the WG LC of the draft. Have no objection with the current status of the draft. Warm regards, Luc-Fabrice Ndifor Specialist - IP Access and Data center luc-fabrice.ndi...@mtn.com T +237 677 55 02 13 Head Office: 360, Rue Drouot P.O. Box 15 574 Douala, Cameroon T +237 679 00 90 90 | mtn.cm This email is confidential. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its content to any other person as to do so could be a breach of confidentiality. Please be informed that no employee or agent is authorized to conclude any legally binding agreement on behalf of MTN Cameroon via email. This can be only done if the email is confirmed explicitly in writing by an MTN Cameroon authorized officer. In no event will this email or its content be construed as a written approval. -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 5:19 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller Hi all, This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone). Please note that this I-D is related to draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG adoption queue. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] New Version Notification for draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-02.txt
Dear PCEers, Thank all the colleagues who have commented on this draft during my presentation in IETF108. We have addressed all the comments in this new version. Please review. Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-02 Since we have agreed that this is a nice feature to have, we would like to ask the WG to adopt this draft. Thank you! Best regards, Shuping ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
