Subject: [Pce] Update on the PCE DS-TE ID

From: "Siva Sivabalan (msiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:27:52 -0400

The ID is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-dste-01.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-dste-01.txt> 
 
Update:
======
We included the comments from Adrian (below).
* Removed the description of PCEP message header from the document and
made reference to the PCEP ID/RFC.
* Eliminated the format error.
* Updated the IANA section (with the allocated codepoints).

=========================== Adrian's Comments
===========================================

Hi,

Thanks for working on this I-D. I have just been looking at it and there
a couple of process issues I think you need to clean up...

===

Watch out! Your I-D is about to expire

===

Insert a blank line between document title and filename === Please run
idnits ( http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
<http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/>  )

I see 1 error and 8 warnings

===

Indentation and layout.

I think you are victims of Microsoft Word.

You need to leftshift the whole document by five spaces.

It would be nice to have a blank line at the top of each page.

===

Repetition of common object header.

You don't need to (i.e. you shouldn't ;-) reproduce text from [PCEP]
because that creates a potential conflict of definitions.

===

Use of P and I bits.

If the P bit is set, the Classtype object must be taken into account. If
clear it can be ignored.

The I bit requests the inclusion of object in the response if it was
ignored.

But you have:

Path computation reply message MUST NOT include a CLASSTYPE

object.

Does that mean that you intend to mandate that the P bit is set in the
object header on the request?

===

Codepoint allocations

You have some conflicts with other I-Ds.

I have included your I-Ds in the codepoint registry at
http://www.olddog.co.uk/pcep-codepoints.txt
<http://www.olddog.co.uk/pcep-codepoints.txt> 

Search for [DSTE] and update your I-D accordingly.

===

IANA section

You mustn't expect the folk at IANA to trawl through the draft or to
know PCEP. So you need to have more detailed IANA section. For
example...

IANA maintains a registry of parameters for PCEP. This contains a
sub-registry for PCEP objects. IANA is requested to make a new
allocation from this registry as follows:

Object Name Reference

Class

22 CLASSTYPE [This.I-D]

Object-Type

1: Class Type [This.I-D]

You need to make a similar request for the new error type and values.

===

Manageability considerations

This section is not mandatory, but the WG is trying to always consider
manageability when developing protocol extensions. My guess is that
there are not many requirements here, but certainly some configurable
items.

===

Typos

s/Client(PCC)/Client (PCC)/

s/for which path is to be/for which the path is to be/ s/does not
support CLASSTYPE object/does not support the CLASSTYPE object/
s/Author's Addresses/Authors' Addresses/ Several times you have "the
draft [PCEP-ID]". You should change this to "[PCEP-ID]"

Cheers,

Adrian 

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce