Hi WG, Adrian, Jon and I had a quick chat (the benefit of getting comments during the IETF week). See inline for details...
From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 28 March 2017 17:18 To: 'Jonathan Hardwick' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00 Hi Jon, I see that WG last call completed in silence. Possibly a function of people preparing for IETF-98. Maybe just means that everyone thinks it is obvious to update the RFC and move on. Anyway, since I'm sitting in a WG meeting where the discussion is a little too esoteric even for me, here is a quick (but late) review. Cheers, Adrian === Unfortunate effect of a bis is that the author count has gone OTT. [Dhruv] Yes, I think this can be added in the shepherd report and hopefully that should be fine. --- A bit odd to wipe the Acknowledgements of the people who contributed to RFC 6006. [Dhruv] Ack --- Why has Zafar disappeared from the Authors' Addresses (but remains on the front page)? [Dhruv] Oops, my mistake. Fixed. --- Good job picking up the five errata that are on file. I was a little surprised to see some additional changes that have not been flagged to the WG nor noted anywhere in the document (e.g., in a changes section such as Appendix A). --- I see you added some text to 3.4. I see that this text is to explain the RBNF that follows, so that is probably OK. --- I must have missed the discussion of Errata Report 4867. Sorry about that. There are three issues, I think 1. Trying to pack all RBNF into the spec as though the RBNF was the normative definition of the message format. It isn't and was never intended to be. Doing this gets infinitely complicated as more objects are added. Doesn't mean what you have done is wrong, wrt svec-list, just not necessary. 2. Removal of <BANDWIDTH> from <RRO-List> is wrong, I think. As I see it: You can apply <BANDWIDTH> to the whole <RRO-List> by placing it after the <RRO-List>. If you want one <RRO> in an <RRO-List> to have a different <BANDWIDTH> you can include a separate <BANDWIDTH> after the <RRO>. I think you have *changed* the specification so that the way this function is achieved is to pull the <RRO> that has a different <BANDWIDTH> out into a different <RRO-List>. That's functional and can be changed if that is what people want and have discussed, but doing it with an Errata is a mistake because it was not an error in the document. 3. You also see to think that <BANDWIDTH> cannot be applied to the <END-POINTS> unless an <RRO-LIST> is present. I think that is wrong, too. If it makes sense to have <END-POINTS> without an an <RRO-List> why would you not allow each instance of <END-POINTS> to have its own <BANDWIDTH>? This also seems to be a change of substance rather than an error in the document. Again, the WG is free to make this change, but surely not without discussion. [Dhruv] https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=RFC6006&url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00<https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=RFC6006&url2=draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00> [cid:[email protected]] - BANDWIDTH object is for the full P2MP tree i.e. for all destinations, we do not need different bandwidth for each destination/RRO. - The re-optimization bandwidth needs to be included only with the RRO; this is same as RFC5440 So the changes in the RBNF were done to fix it. --- I see you have added some text to 3.5. This also seems to be just explanation and is probably OK. --- The fix in 3.12 looks good, but was not flagged to the WG. I will upload a new version as well. Thanks! Dhruv From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 10 March 2017 13:55 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Pce] Working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00 Dear PCE working group, This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-00. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/ Please read the document and reply to the PCE mailing list whether you believe this document is ready to be published, or not (including any comments on why not). The last call will end on Monday 20 March. Best regards Jon, JP and Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
