Re: [Pce] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT)
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:35:19AM -0500, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > Hi, Jonathan, > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Hardwick < > jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote: > > > Hi Spencer > > > > Thanks for your comments. Please see [Jon] below. > > > > Cheers > > Jon > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com] > > Sent: 03 April 2018 03:23 > > > > [Jon] I have proposed an update to Benjamin. The draft does not need any > > sub-TLVs, hence there are no examples, which has been a frequent pattern in > > PCE RFCs since the working group got started! Having said that, we could > > immediately point to the first real example of a PST sub-TLV by providing > > an informative reference to draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing. I don't see > > a problem doing this as the documents were always intended to be published > > together. How about > > > > OLD > > This document does not define any sub-TLVs. > > NEW > > This document does not define any sub-TLVs; an example can be found in > > [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. > > END > > > > Since I was echoing Benjamin's concern, I'll echo his relief - whatever you > folks work out, will work for me. > > But that sounds like a fine plan to me. Having this additional informational reference also sounds good to me. -Benjamin ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT)
Hi, Jonathan, On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Jonathan Hardwick < jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> wrote: > Hi Spencer > > Thanks for your comments. Please see [Jon] below. > > Cheers > Jon > > -Original Message- > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com] > Sent: 03 April 2018 03:23 > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org; Julien Meuric < > julien.meu...@orange.com>; pce-cha...@ietf.org; julien.meu...@orange.com; > pce@ietf.org > Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: > (with COMMENT) > > > I'll let you folks work with Benjamin on this, but I echo his concern > about the level of specification covering sub-TLVs (Spencer's summary: "not > much specification"). As a related comment, I note that not defining any > sub-TLVs in this document prevents the authors from giving any examples of > what sub-TLVs might be appropriate, which would have been helpful for me in > both the Abstract and Introduction. > > (I usually prefer clues about whether the reader should be reading a > specification or not. It would be easier for me to know whether this > document is relevant to me, if I knew what kinds of sub-TLVs were > envisioned, even if only a couple of examples were provided. But do the > right thing, of course) > > [Jon] I have proposed an update to Benjamin. The draft does not need any > sub-TLVs, hence there are no examples, which has been a frequent pattern in > PCE RFCs since the working group got started! Having said that, we could > immediately point to the first real example of a PST sub-TLV by providing > an informative reference to draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing. I don't see > a problem doing this as the documents were always intended to be published > together. How about > > OLD > This document does not define any sub-TLVs. > NEW > This document does not define any sub-TLVs; an example can be found in > [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. > END > Since I was echoing Benjamin's concern, I'll echo his relief - whatever you folks work out, will work for me. But that sounds like a fine plan to me. Spencer ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT)
Hi Spencer Thanks for your comments. Please see [Jon] below. Cheers Jon -Original Message- From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com] Sent: 03 April 2018 03:23 To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org; Julien Meuric <julien.meu...@orange.com>; pce-cha...@ietf.org; julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT) I'll let you folks work with Benjamin on this, but I echo his concern about the level of specification covering sub-TLVs (Spencer's summary: "not much specification"). As a related comment, I note that not defining any sub-TLVs in this document prevents the authors from giving any examples of what sub-TLVs might be appropriate, which would have been helpful for me in both the Abstract and Introduction. (I usually prefer clues about whether the reader should be reading a specification or not. It would be easier for me to know whether this document is relevant to me, if I knew what kinds of sub-TLVs were envisioned, even if only a couple of examples were provided. But do the right thing, of course) [Jon] I have proposed an update to Benjamin. The draft does not need any sub-TLVs, hence there are no examples, which has been a frequent pattern in PCE RFCs since the working group got started! Having said that, we could immediately point to the first real example of a PST sub-TLV by providing an informative reference to draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing. I don't see a problem doing this as the documents were always intended to be published together. How about OLD This document does not define any sub-TLVs. NEW This document does not define any sub-TLVs; an example can be found in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. END ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT)
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: 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-lsp-setup-type/ -- COMMENT: -- I'll let you folks work with Benjamin on this, but I echo his concern about the level of specification covering sub-TLVs (Spencer's summary: "not much specification"). As a related comment, I note that not defining any sub-TLVs in this document prevents the authors from giving any examples of what sub-TLVs might be appropriate, which would have been helpful for me in both the Abstract and Introduction. (I usually prefer clues about whether the reader should be reading a specification or not. It would be easier for me to know whether this document is relevant to me, if I knew what kinds of sub-TLVs were envisioned, even if only a couple of examples were provided. But do the right thing, of course) ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
