Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 12:30:18 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: 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-association-group/

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

(1) s/before hand/beforehand/g

(2) §5: "Start-Assoc-ID...The values 0 and 0xffff MUST NOT be used."  What
should the receiver do if they are?

(3) §5: "Range...it MUST be such that (Start-Assoc-ID + Range) do not cross the
association identifier range of 0xffff."  What should the receiver do if it
does?

(4) s/is OPTIONAL and MAY/MAY/g   OPTIONAL = MAY

(5) §9.2: "An implementation SHOULD allow...Further implementation SHOULD
allow... To serve this purpose, the PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
includes association groups."  If I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang is the mechanism that
addresses these Normative statements, then it should be a Normative reference. 
I think that it is not necessary to point at I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang in this
document.

(6) RFC8126 should be a Normative reference.

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:02:39 +0530

Hi Alvaro,

Please see inline...

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-group/

Ack.

> should the receiver do if they are?

Section 5.1 includes -

   If the
   Start-Assoc-ID or Range are set incorrectly, the PCEP session MUST be
   rejected with error type 1 and error value 1 (PCEP session
   establishment failure / Reception of an invalid Open message).

But I can make this clearer right here.

> association identifier range of 0xffff."  What should the receiver do if it

See above.

> (4) s/is OPTIONAL and MAY/MAY/g   OPTIONAL = MAY

Ack.

> I think that it is not necessary to point at I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang in this

I reworded this to -

   The PCEP YANG module is defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. In
   future, this YANG module should be extended or augmented to provide
   the following additional information relating to association groups.

   An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the associations
   configured or created dynamically.  Further implementation SHOULD
   allow to view associations reported by each peer, and the current set
   of LSPs in the association.

But retained the informational reference. Hope this is okay?

> (6) RFC8126 should be a Normative reference.

Ack.

Thanks for your review.

Working Copy - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10.txt
Diff - https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10.txt

Thanks!
Dhruv