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

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 18:27:50 -0700

Erik Kline 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[ section 2 ]

* "a flag is provided to indicate that the sender of a PCEP message
  that includes a Flow Specification is intended to be installed as
  a Longest Prefix Match route, or..."

  This didn't scan too well for me.  It seems the subject is the sender
  as written, but perhaps the message itself is the thing that
  "is intended to be installed..."?

  Oh, perhaps this is what's meant:

  "a flag is provided to indicate that the sender of a PCEP message
  that includes a Flow Specification intends it to be installed as a
  Longest Prefix Match route or as a Flow Specification policy."

[ section 5 ]

* Is it well-known whether multibyte numeric fields are network
  endian or not?

[ section 6 ]

* "The TLVs follows" -> "The TLVs follow", I think

[ section 7 ]

* "carries one or more ... TLV" -> "...TLVs."

* "defines following new types" -> "defines the following new types"

* Purely out of curiosity, if either S=1 or G=1 can/should it be specified that
  the source/group addresses simply not be included (i.e. the bits indicate
  not only that the field is not examined but that it's not inclued)?

[ section 7.1 ]

* "carries one or more ... TLV" -> "...TLVs."

[ section 8.4 ]

* "will be place on a single tunnel" -> "will be placed into a single tunnel"
   perhaps?

[ section 8.7 ]

* Recommend splitting up the long sentence with ", however" ->
  ".  However, ..."

* "if the Flow Specification make" -> "if the Flow Specifications make"?

* Maybe I've lost too much mental state between readings, but the final
  paragraph, as written, makes me wonder how a FlowSpec gets installed in
  the first place.  I assume I'm missing something in my naive reading.  =)

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 14:32:17 +0100

Nice collection of nits, Erik. Thanks.

Will attend to them when the next version comes out.

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]> 
Sent: 23 August 2020 02:28
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-10: (with COMMENT)

[ section 2 ]

[ section 5 ]

[ section 6 ]

[ section 7 ]

[ section 7.1 ]

[ section 8.4 ]

[ section 8.7 ]

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2020 14:23:58 -0700

> Nice collection of nits, Erik. Thanks.

At best, it's really all I'm good for.  =)

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:15:00 +0100

Thanks again Erik,

Processing the details now...

>  Longest Prefix Match route or as a Flow Specification policy."

Yes, modulo s/that the/whether the/

> * Is it well-known whether multibyte numeric fields are network

I think so. I think all PCEP integers are transmitted MSB first. Calling this one out for "clarification" would cause the reader to wonder whether it was in some way special (which it isn't).

> * "The TLVs follows" -> "The TLVs follow", I think

Well, maybe "The TLV follows" 😊

> * "carries one or more ... TLV" -> "...TLVs."

Well, you caused an 'argument' between me and my copy-editor wife ☹

I think this one is right. 
Warriner says "the verb agrees with the nearest subject."
Thus, "There is one or more cat," and "One or more dogs are in the box."

But for consistency with other places in the document, which has otherwise been entirely inconsistent, (and to save my marriage even though I know I'm right) I've added the 's'.

> * "defines following new types" -> "defines the following new types"

Ack

>  not only that the field is not examined but that it's not included)?

Interesting, but I think that what happens then is you have to specify how to handle what happens if the addresses are included. That processing would either be to throw an error or to ignore the addresses. Furthermore, since the format of the structure is fixed, the address fields always exist and it is moot whether an address has been included and set to zero (e.g., 0.0.0.0) or whether it has been not included. Since processing can continue correctly by ignoring the addresses, it is better to go down that path.

> * "carries one or more ... TLV" -> "...TLVs."

There being no section 7.1, I think this is per the previous comment.

> * "will be place on a single tunnel" -> "will be placed into a single tunnel"

Ack

> * Recommend splitting up the long sentence with ", however" ->

Yes. Good.

> * "if the Flow Specification make" -> "if the Flow Specifications make"?

Ack

>  the first place.  I assume I'm missing something in my naive reading.  =)

Flow Specifications can (sadly or happily, depending on your outlook on life) be installed in a number of ways including the CLI and BGP. This is just another way of doing stuff (mainly for a different purpose).

Best,
Adrian