Brian, Hi! Please see inline (prefixed [VPB])
Regards, -Pavan (as the Document Shepherd) From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:48 PM To: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, General Area Review Team <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03 Hi Brian, Thanks for your review and sorry for the delay in the reply [ Diwali festivities in these neck of woods :) ] Please see inline... On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects-03.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2015-11-13 IETF LC End Date: 2015-11-09 IESG Telechat date: 2015-11-19 Summary: Ready with issues -------- Comment: -------- I haven't seen a response to my Last Call review, so this is the same. Needs to be approved along with draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence. [Dhruv]: Agreed Major Issues: ------------- > 3.2.1. Autonomous system > > [RFC3209] already defines 2-Byte AS number. > > To support 4-Byte AS numbers as per [RFC6793], the following > subobject is defined: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |L| Type | Length | Reserved | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AS-ID (4 bytes) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I don't understand why that is considered Experimental. It seems like a major defect in RFC 3209 that needs to be fixed on the standards track as soon as possible, independently of the present draft. [Dhruv]: This was suggested in the TEAS mailing list and it was decided that WG can revisit if/when usage warrants to move this to standards track. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/TV3X9BVc9mGW4lXWr-C0-sziCQE There were no objections to this approach. [VPB] As Dhruv pointed out, the WG did consider (link above) having the AS-ID specific extension discussed under standards track. But there wasn’t any interest shown by the WG for doing it at this point. This lack of interest could be perceived as an indication that there are currently no RSVP-TE deployments that use an AS-ID in the ERO. The decision by the WG was to revisit this discussion-point if/when there is some interest from the community to use the AS-ID in the ERO. Minor Issues: ------------- It would be nice to see a suggested timescale for the experiment in section 1.1. How many years before this document should be evaluated? [Dhruv]: We can add - The experiment will end two years after the RFC is published. At that point, the RFC authors will attempt to determine how widely this has been implemented and deployed. Thanks for your reviews! Regards, Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
