Hi again Tom!

Thanks for your detailed reviews! Much appreciated!


On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 6:42 PM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Some more thoughts on -20
>
> RFC5520 says that reuse timer MUST NOT reuse for at  least 30min;  YANG
> has a default of 30min should that be a minimum?
>
>
Agree added range "30..max";



> Path Setup Type v Path Signaling Type
> PCE mostly uses the former, TEAS te-types uses the latter.  Is there a
> difference?  Worth an explanatory note (some WG use ... which some may find
> confusing:-) IMHO
>
>
In PCE WG documents use of the term Path Setup Type (PST) is uniform;
anyways I have added a note in the description.



> ASSOCIATION Type
> somewhat similar; this I-D uses te-types but there is also an IANA
> registry.  Are they the same ?  I see IANA being updated much more quickly
> than a YANG module such as te-types in which case I think that the
> reference perhaps should be to the IANA registry.
>
>
There are some PCEP specific association types that are now added. The
reference to IANA exists already.



> The identifiers used for lsp-error are not quite the same as those in
> RFC8231.  Yes the order is the same so I can work it out but would prefer
> either the names to be the same or else - probably better - have the
> numeric values included in description of the identity
>
>
Updated.

Thanks!
Dhruv



> I am almost done but not quite  - I am trying to match 8231 with the YANG
> and have not quite made it but is is CoB on Friday afternoon:-(
>
> Tom Petch
> ________________________________________
> From: Pce <[email protected]> on behalf of tom petch <
> [email protected]>
> Sent: 22 November 2022 12:19
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-19
>
> From: Pce <[email protected]> on behalf of tom petch <
> [email protected]>
> Sent: 17 November 2022 10:42
>
> From: Pce <[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected] <
> [email protected]>
> Sent: 17 November 2022 09:38
>
> As mentioned in the PCE session during IETF 115, this WGLC has ended.
> Thanks Tom for your review. Comment resolution is in progress.
>
> <tp>
>
> -20 did appear in October.  Is that worth looking at or waiting for -21?
>
> <tp2>
>
> Sigh, it is big, it is complicated and one day I will get to review it
> all, but not just yet.
>
> MSD. Treated here as a single value but other I-D now treat it as a list
> of different types as in draft-qu-mpls-mpls-msd-yang and there is an IANA
> registry of types as well as differentiation between node and link MSD.
> Which does PCE mean?  Or should it join the crowd and have lists thereof?
>
> -20 changes the reference for the IANA PCE flags.  This change to IANA is
> by draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-13 so I see that I-D as a
> Normative Reference.
>
> -20 adds two new flags.  TCP-AO I see in the flags but nowhere else, no
> reference, no feature, no explanation.  Something needs adding and I would
> expect that to include Security Considerations.  Again this makes that
> lsr-pce I-D a Normative Reference IMO.
>
> p.11 Tree diagram seems to be missing a  vertical bar where auth has been
> slotted in
>
> "Set to true if SR-MPLS is enabled
> but where is this enablement?  Not in RFC8664 AFAICT
>
>   "PCEP Association Global Source.";
> I see
>      "PCEP Global Association Source.";
>   In RFC8697
>
> [IANA-IGP] reference
> Title seems short of a 'P'
>
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Julien
>
>
> On 26/09/2022 15:01, [email protected] wrote:
> > Hi PCE WG,
> >
> > This message starts a 2-week WG Last Call for
> > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-19. Please review and share any feedback
> > using the PCE mailing list.
> > This WGLC will end on Tuesday October 11.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Reply via email to