Subject: [Pce] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 21:34:36 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-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-pcep-flowspec/

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

I found this document clear to follow, so thanks. I’m somewhat concerned there
are no implementations.

Nits:
Sec 5. Specify the error if more than 1 TLV of any type is present.

Sec 7. The text is incomplete for the (*, G) case.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 10:46:14 +0100

Thanks, Martin.

> Sec 5. Specify the error if more than 1 TLV of any type is present.

Yes. Both TLVs earn the text...
      If
      more than one instance of this TLV is present, the first MUST be
      processed and subsequence instances MUST be ignored.

> Sec 7. The text is incomplete for the (*, G) case.

Ooops, yes.
Should read...

(*, G) - S bit = 1, G bit = 0, the Group multicast Address prefix is used to define the
         multicast flow, but the Source Address prefix is ignored.

Cheers,
Adrian