Re: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid
Hi Julien, Sorry for my late reply, we have addressed the comments in revision 10. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-10 Please check it. Many thanks, Cheng -Original Message- From: julien.meu...@orange.com [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 12:32 AM To: Chengli (Cheng Li) ; 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 Cheng, Thanks for the update and sorry for the late feedback. I've spotted a couple of nits: - In the abstract, s/It further specify/It further specifies/ - In the intro: * I'd put the word "either" after the word "using" (cf. below); * a space was mistakenly dropped on "aPath". About the issue left open below, the text currently says "The PCE SHOULD allocated [...] and respond". Either you should mention what happens when this SHOULD doesn't apply or you may consider upgrading to MUST. Regards, Julien On 03/06/2021 09:54, Chengli (Cheng Li) wrote: > 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' ; > 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, mu
[Pce] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-10
Julien Meuric has requested publication of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-10 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the PCE working group. Please verify the document's state at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Shepherd's Review of draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid
Hi Cheng, Thank you for addressing my comments. We now can move on. Cheers, Julien On 19/07/2021 11:12, Chengli (Cheng Li) wrote: > Hi Julien, > > Sorry for my late reply, we have addressed the comments in revision 10. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-10 > > Please check it. > > Many thanks, > Cheng > > > -Original Message- > From: julien.meu...@orange.com [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 12:32 AM > > Hi Cheng, > > Thanks for the update and sorry for the late feedback. > > I've spotted a couple of nits: > - In the abstract, s/It further specify/It further specifies/ > - In the intro: > * I'd put the word "either" after the word "using" (cf. below); > * a space was mistakenly dropped on "aPath". > > About the issue left open below, the text currently says "The PCE SHOULD > allocated [...] and respond". Either you should mention what happens when > this SHOULD doesn't apply or you may consider upgrading to MUST. > > Regards, > > Julien > > > On 03/06/2021 09:54, Chengli (Cheng Li) wrote: >> 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' ; >> 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/T
