Thanks Brian! Thanks Pavan! Happy Diwali :)
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Brian E Carpenter < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
