Subject: [Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:09:45 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. I am trusting the routing AD for
their deep understanding of this document and their approval.

Nevertheless, I have 2 COMMENTs which are mere questions of mine.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3.2 --
C.1) Any reason to have a field named "unassigned flags" rather than
"reserved"? After all, those bits could be used later for something different
than flags. Also applicable to section 6.2.

C.2) is there any reason the "P", "S" and "PT" are described right to left ?

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 11:42:09 +0530

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your comments.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection/

The encoding is to make the full 32 bits as a flag field called "Path
Protection Association Flags (32 bits)" with IANA registry for all 32
bits. RFC 4872 also considers "PT" as flags - "LSP (Protection Type)
Flags". We expect only flags (or fields represented as flags) in this
TLV in future. In case some other data needs to be encoded we expect
another TLV to be defined for it.

> C.2) is there any reason the "P", "S" and "PT" are described right to left ?

I guess because of the order of importance, we could check with RFC
editor later in case they have a concern.

Thanks!
Dhruv