Hi Roman,
Thank you for the review.
Regarding the 3 text statements, thank you for catching that and can see how it
looks inconsistent. Dhruv has kindly suggested the following text changes to
help the text be more consistent (Thanks again Dhruv!). If you agree this helps
clear the conflict, I'll submit the change in the next revision.
OLD:
* E Flag (Protection Enforcement): This flag controls the strictness
in which the PCE must apply the L flag. When set to 1, the value
of the L flag MUST be respected during resource selection by the
PCE. When E flag is set to 0, the value of the L flag SHOULD be
respected as selection criteria; however, the PCE is permitted to
relax or ignore the L flag when computing a path. The statements
below indicate preference when E flag is set to 0 in combination
with the L flag value.
NEW:
* E Flag (Protection Enforcement): This flag controls the strictness
in which the PCE must apply the L flag. When set to 1, the value
of the L flag needs to be respected during resource selection by the
PCE. When E flag is set to 0, an attempt to respect the value of the
L flag is made; however, the PCE could relax or ignore the L flag when
computing a path. The statements below indicate preference when the E
flag is set to 0 in combination with the L flag value.
END
Regarding "respecting" vs "considering," the use of "respecting" was intended
to indicate that PCE should adhere to the user's request ('respect the law')
but permitted to breaking it when E=0. On the other hand, the term
"considering" is used in the context of how PCE should interpret the meaning of
the bit flags in relation to the definition terms.
The nits will also be corrected within next revision. [
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/KZIGUYK1D2lPPgD8HLITczgCKaw/ ]
Thanks
Andrew
On 2023-06-21, 10:39 AM, "Roman Danyliw via Datatracker" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-10: Discuss
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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
<https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/>
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Section 5. There is seemingly conflicting guidance on the interpreting the
E and L flag.
Statement #1
When E flag is set to 0, the value of the L flag SHOULD be
respected as selection criteria;
Statement #2
When the L flag is set to 1 and the E flag is set to 0, then the PCE
MUST consider the protection eligibility as a PROTECTION PREFERRED
constraint.
Statement #3
When L flag is set to 0 and E flag is set to 1, then the PCE MUST
consider the protection eligibility as an UNPROTECTED MANDATORY
constraint.
-- The Statement #1 appears to be weaker (SHOULD) than Statement #2 and 3.
-- What is the difference between “respecting [something] in the selection
criteria” and “consider[ing] the protection eligibility”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef for the SECDIR review.
** Abstract. This document updates RFC5440 but does not explicitly say that in
this section.
** Section 7.
Securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS)
[RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current practices in
[RFC7525] is RECOMMENDED.
RFC7525 has been replaced by RFC9325.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
