Subject: Re: [Pce] Chair's pre-adoption review of draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06

From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:19:34 +0000

Hi WG,

We have updated the document to address the comments: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid/

Point 1 and 6 are pending and can be resolved during the WG adoption process.

Best Regards,
Cheng

-----Original Message-----
From: Siva Sivabalan (msiva) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 8:19 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; pce-chairs <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Chair's pre-adoption review of draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06

Hi Dhruv,

We will address your comments and post a new rev.

Thanks,
Siva

Siva Sivabalan
PRINCIPAL ENGINEER.ENGINEERING
[email-masked]
Tel: +1 613 254 3782
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
KANATA
K2K 3E8
Canada
cisco.com

Think before you print.
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here for Company Registration Information.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 6:27 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; pce-chairs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Chair's pre-adoption review of draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-06

Hi Authors,

In preparation for the upcoming WG adoption call, I did a quick review of your I-D to tidy things up. At this stage we need to make sure that I-D is in good enough state as a base of further work by the WG if adopted.

(1) 6 authors on the front page, better to handle this now itself, rather than much later in the process.

(2) Add Implementation Status as per the WG policy. I assume there are implementations of this work?

(3) Start work on the 'Manageability Considerations' section. Currently it is marked TBD.

(4) This document includes details about reporting BSID for a path. What happens when PCE creates a SR path (SR-ERO) that includes a BSID. This detail is currently missing, we need to a clarity on how to encode a BSID in SR-ERO and the best place is this document.

My guess would be to say no NAI in case of BSID in SR-ERO and confirm how the flags should be set for both SR-MPLS and SRv6.

(5) Add reference to Section 6.4 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy]
for non-SR use of BSID.

(6) Why use 'label/SID' in this I-D? Please check in spring what would be the best practice can it just be SID?

(7) Security Consideration is bit week. You have a way for PCE to assign BSID and this needs to be analysed for potential exploitation.

(8) Update Section 6.1.1 to include SRv6

(9) Remove this sentence from section 1 - "However, use of this TLV for carrying non-MPLS binding SID will be described in separate document(s)."; as you support SRv6. Similarly, reword section 3, 2nd paragraph.

Note that these are non-blocking comments for WG adoption but it would be great, if the authors publish a revision handling these.

Thanks!
Dhruv