Hi, On 13/11/2015 18:25, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote: > Brian, Hi! > > Please see inline (prefixed [VPB]) > > Regards, > -Pavan (as the Document Shepherd) > > 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 :) ]
Ah, finally a valid excuse :-). Actually the public Diwali celebration in Auckland, where I live, was a couple of weeks ago so I didn't think of this. > 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. OK, that is a good explanation. So let's leave that in the hands of the IESG. > 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. That would be fine, in my opinion. Thanks Brian > > Thanks for your reviews! > > Regards, > Dhruv > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
