Hi Roman, Thanks for taking the responsible AD role for this I-D.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 7:56 PM Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! > > I performed an AD review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-07. To > help load balance AD document queues, I'll be taking over as responsible AD. > > Thanks for this document. My feedback is below: > > ** Is there a reason why this document does not formally updated RFC8231 > and RFC8281 given the text in Section 2? > > Dhruv: This is the case of "Extends" as per draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag. Within PCE WG, we have not used "Updates" to mean "extends" and doing it now will just create more confusion. > ** Section 2. I’m not confident in my understanding of RFC5511 models. > Where is the reference or explanation of this value: <VENDOR-INFORMATION> > in this document? > > Dhruv: That would be Vendor Information object from RFC 7470. This is understandable to anyone with understanding of PCEP RBNF. > ** Section 2. Consider provide specific section references when OLD/NEW > text is provided. Dhruv: Thanks for these, makes sense to include section numbers! <snip> > ** Section 2. Per the definition of PCInitiate, RFC8281 included the text > “<Common Header> is defined in RFC 5440”. Should that be used here? > > Dhruv: The <Common Header> is common to all PCEP messages and well understood. In the case where we are simply extending the messages and the initial message is specified in existing RFC, we have not used that text. For the sake of uniformity, prefer to keep it that way. > ** Section 4.2 > Any > standard YANG module will not include details of vendor-specific > information. > > What is a “standard” YANG module? > > Dhruv: That would be to differentiate with vendor-specific YANG extensions. RFC 7470 uses similar phrasing. > ** Section 4.6 > > Section 6.6 of [RFC7470] highlights how the presence of additional > vendor-specific information in PCEP messages may congest the > operations and how to detect and handle it. A similar approach > SHOULD be considered for Stateful PCEP messages and for a PCE. > > What does it mean when an approach “SHOULD be considered”? SHOULD is > already conveying that this behavior is optional. Can the desired behavior > please be more tangibly described? > > Dhruv: How about rephrasing this way - This also applies to stateful PCEP messages as outlined in Section 2. Specifically, a PCEP speaker SHOULD NOT include vendor information in a stateful PCEP message if it believes the recipient does not support that information. Authors, if you disagree, please feel free to jump in! Thanks! Dhruv (Document Shepherd) > Regards, > Roman > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
