Hi Dhruv! Thanks for these proposed edits. They address my comments.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 2:09 AM > To: Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> > Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path- > [email protected]; Julien Meuric <[email protected]>; pce-chairs > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path- > protection-10: (with COMMENT) > > Hi Roman, > > Thanks for your comments. Few thoughts... > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 2:31 AM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut > > this introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protecti > > on/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ** Section 3.2. It took me a bit to understand that the Path > > Protection Association TLV goes in an ASSOCIATION Object per Section 6 > > of [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. On initial reading of “[t]he > > Path Protection Association TLV is an optional TLV for use with the > > Path Protection Association Type” this relationship wasn’t clear. I’d > > recommend an editorial update to make it clearer. I believe this is > > related Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS #5 (which I support). > > > > This is updated to "The Path Protection Association TLV is an optional TLV > for use in the ASSOCIATION Object with the Path Protection Association > Type." Thanks. That is much clearer. > > ** Section 3.2 The protection type field specifies the protection > > type of the LSP. Section 1 notes that “one working LSP [can be > > associated with] one or more protection LSPs using the generic > > association mechanism.” Assuming a case were multiple protection LSPs > > are specified, is it valid for the protections type to be different? > > > > An explicit error text has been added to make sure LSPs within the > association group has the same Protection Type. > > ** Section 4.5. For clarity, I would recommend being precise with the > > exact code point names when discussing conflicting combinations of > protection types. > > For example, s/1+1 or 1:N/1+1 (i.e., protection type=0x08 or 0x10) or > > 1:N (i.e., protection type = 0x04) with N=1 per <insert IANA registry > > name>/ > > > > Based on Barry's comment this was simplified and now we have just two > case 1+1 and 1:N. The protection type values could be added in brackets. > > > Baring these combinations, are other any other remaining combinations > > of protection types legal given different protection LSPs in the same > > PPAG (e.g., > > 0x1 + 0x2)? > > > > As per RFC 4872, all "other" values are reserved. > As per Ben's comment, this was added - "Any type already defined or that > could be defined in the future for use in the RSVP-TE PROTECTION object is > acceptable in this TLV unless explicitly stated otherwise." Thanks. For both of the items above, the proposed approach is clearer and addresses my comment. > > ** Editorial Nits: > > -- Section 1. s/effect/affect/ > > > > -- Section 1. Per “When the working LSPs are computed and controlled > > by the PCE, there is benefit in a mode of operation where protection > > LSPs are as well”, I couldn’t parse the second clause. > > > > Thanks, Roman > > Thanks! > Dhruv _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
