Ack. Thanks for the speedy response. A > -----Original Message----- > From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 07 May 2015 04:30 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-01 > > Hi Adrian, > > Thanks for your review, please see the attached working-copy/diff. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > > Sent: 05 May 2015 22:14 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-01 > > > > Hi, > > > > No objections to this document from me, and thanks to the author for the > > diligence with which he checked the impact of this change. We can't see from > > the outside whether enough of the "real implementers" responded, but they > had > > their chance and this last call is their last chance :-) > > > > --- > > > > I think it would be helpful if the "update" to RFC 5440 was more anchored > > into that document. > > > > So... > > > > The update is to section 7.12, yes? > > The text in the last paragraph of your section 2 is to be considered part of > > the spec, yes? > > The text is intended to replace the last line of 5440/7.12 that currently > > says > > The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO. > > > > I also think there is a bit of an over-use of "MUST" in... > > The content of an IRO object MUST be an ordered list of subobjects > > representing a series of abstract nodes. > > Using "is" would be more appropriate. You could go "MUST be interpreted as", > > but that also sounds excessive use of language. > > > > Okay, updated accordingly. Section 2 now says - > > This document thus updates [RFC5440] regarding the IRO specification > and is intended to replace the last line in section 7.12 of > [RFC5440], that states - > > "The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO." > > As per the update in this document, the L Bit of IRO sub-object is > set based on the loose or strict property of the sub-object, which is > set if the sub-object represents a loose hop. If the bit is not set, > the sub-object represents a strict hop. The interpretation of Loose > bit (L bit) is as per section 4.3.3.1 of [RFC3209]. > > Also, as per the update in this document, the content of IRO is an > ordered list of sub-objects representing a series of abstract nodes. > An abstract node could just be a simple abstract node comprising one > node or a group of nodes for example an AS (comprising of multiple > hops within the AS) (refer section 4.3.2 of [RFC3209]). > > > --- > > > > In the Introduction you say > > During discussion of [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence] it was > > proposed to have a new IRO type with ordered nature, as well as > > handling of Loose bit (L bit). > > > > This is completely true and indisputable. But appearing like this it raises > > more questions than it answers. Either delete the paragraph or add some > > resolution such as "however, with the update to RFC 5440 described in this > > document, no new IRO type is needed." > > > > Okay, added the resolution, and moved the paragraph. > > > --- > > > > Section 2 has > > > > A survey of the existing and planned implementations was conducted in > > order to discover the current state of affairs amongst > > implementations. [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey] describe the > > questionnaire, results and presents some conclusions and proposed > > action items. More details in Appendix A. > > > > Having read App A I don't think it adds any more details to what is in the > > Intro and in this paragraph. > > You have the reference to the survey i-D (which will stay in the archives for > > ever), so I suggest to delete the appendix and the pointer to it. > > > > Ack. > > > --- > > > > It looks to me that RFC 3209 is a normative reference since I must look there > > to find out how to interpret the L bit. > > > > Yes! Done! > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > > Thank you for the comments. > > Regards, > Dhruv > > > > > > This message initiates a 2-week WG last call on > > > draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-01. Please send your comments to the PCE > > > mailing list by Tuesday May 19. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > JP & Julien > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
