Thanks a lot Tom for your comment. Please see inline <S>.
Regards, Samuel -----Original Message----- From: Pce <pce-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of tom petch Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 12:01 PM To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Any missed comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo From: Pce <pce-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: 10 January 2024 10:18 Hi PCE WG, I would like to ask for WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo on behalf of authors. Are there any remaining issues/comments/questions which I (or co-authors) missed and which are not handled yet? URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo/ <tp> Well new to the PCE list may be I fear but I have a basic problem about 'algorithm'. You reference RFC8665 and RFC 8667. In those it is always SR-Algorithm so I think that that should be the spelling here. <S> I'm calling it "SR Algorithm" in that draft, so I assume that you are pointing to missing "-". Sure, I can modify it. Thanks for pointing it out. More fundamentally, 8665 sets up an IANA registry with two values, 0 and 1, which tells me that 8665 is out of date as soon as it is published and that all references should be to IANA and not the RFC. <S> Sorry, maybe I missed your point, but do you mean that a lot of other RFCs, e.g. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5440#section-9.2 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9552#section-7.1.1 which are also pointing to itself, when new IANA registry is created are incorrect? I interpret it only as specification of initial set of values, which are supposed to be created in new registry and not complete list of values in that registry, which will be created there in the future. The update policy is Standards Action. ADs regard additions to IANA registries as not updating the RFC creating the registry so reading 8665 will not tell you that it is out of date unless you read between the lines of the IANA Considerations and go see what is current. It gets more problematic. The IANA registry was updated by RFC9350 which keeps the same update criteria but splits the range into two 0-127 and 128-255, the latter being flexible. s.4.2.1 talks of Flexible Algorithm with a Normative reference to RFC9350 which begs the question as to the relationship between SR Algorithm and Flexible Algorithm when used in this document. Either/or, Synonyms? <S> s.3.4 is describing F flag. If flag is set, valid values for SR-Algorithm field in PCEP are 128-255, so those allocated for specific subset of SR-Algorithm values called "Flexible Algorithms" and s.4.2.1 is applicable only for such cases. That section may then refer to specific subset of values ("Flexible Algorithms") instead of referring to complete set. Here and now it may all be obvious but in years to come with multiple algorithms in use it will likely be unclear what you are referencing in s.3.2, s.3.3, s.3.4; is it the range 0-127 or 0-255 or 128-255 or...? <S> In all other sections, we are talking about complete set of values so "SR-Algorithm". I agree that it would be better that this document does not have any reference to "IGP Algorithm": https://www.iana.org/assignments/igp-parameters/igp-parameters.xhtml#igp-algorithm-types I can add it for example to s.1 after references to RFC8665 and RF8667. Do you have any other suggestion how to improve it? Tom Petch Thanks a lot, Samuel _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
