Subject: [Teas] R: 答复: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity

From: "Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 16:17:58 +0000

Hi Lou, all,

I've reviewed the draft and I believe it is ready for publication.

Thanks
sergio

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Teas [mailto:[email-masked]] Per conto di Fatai Zhang
Inviato: lunedì 27 giugno 2016 08:05
A: Lou Berger; TEAS WG
Cc: [email-masked]; TEAS WG Chairs
Oggetto: [Teas] 答复: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity

Hi chairs and all, 

I believe the document is ready for publication (as co-author).

Thanks

Fatai

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Teas [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Lou Berger
发送时间: 2016年6月25日 4:04
收件人: TEAS WG
抄送: [email-masked]; TEAS WG Chairs
主题: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity

All,
This starts a two-week working group last call on
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-05

The working group last call ends on July 10. Please send your comments to the teas mailing list.

Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
This is useful and important, even from authors.

Thank you,
TEAS Chairs

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

---

From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 17:23:32 +0000

I've read the draft, and I believe it's ready for publication.

Cheers

Matt

---

From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 05:24:43 +0000

Hi all,

I've reviewed this draft, and I believe it's ready for publication.

Regards,
Tarek

On 2016-06-24, 4:04 PM, "Teas on behalf of Lou Berger" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

All,

The working group last call ends on July 10. Please send your comments
to the teas mailing list.

Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and
believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
This is useful and important, even from authors.

Thank you,
TEAS Chairs

---

From: Rakesh Gandhi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 08:33:14 -0400

Hi WG,

I have read this draft and believe it is ready for publication.

Thanks,
Rakesh

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 10:03:11 -0400

Hello,

    I'm the Shepherd for this  document.  I think it is in pretty good
shape and only have a few comments / nits, most of which are editorial. 
Line numbers used in this message can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-05.txt

- Section 2.1:  These flags fields are *really* short.  It's probably
too late to make a change (I defer to those with implementation on this
- and would like to hear from you either on or off list), but these
fields should really be larger.

- I think this document should be viewed as an update to RFC4874, and
this needs to be identified on the title page.

- Please ensure that the next version passes idnits without errors and,
preferably, without warnings.

- The abstract really needs to stand on it's own.  How about something like:

OLD 
   RFC 4874 specifies methods by which path exclusions can be
   communicated during RSVP-TE signaling in networks where precise
   explicit paths are not computed by the LSP source node. This
   document specifies procedures for additional route exclusion
   subobject based on Paths currently existing or expected to exist
   within the network.

NEW
   Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering provides
   support for the communication of exclusion information
   during labeled switch path setup. This document specifies three new
   route exclusion types.  The new types include exclusions based
   on LSP, PCE and network assigned identifiers.

- General comment: IANA TBAs
    Its good that you identified different TBA values in section 4, but
the TBA# should be included in the main body of the text to facilitate
IANA's placement of the new values.  This applies to lines:
  Line 428: s/to for/to TBA1 for
  Line 430: s/to for/to TBA2 for
  Section 2.2: Missing, I suggest adding text to describe the types and
use same values, TBA1 and TBA2 (I suspect this was your intent)
  Line 718: TBA3
  Lines 789/790: TBA4 -- not text in iana section (lines 931/932)
doesn't match
  Line 823: TBA5
  Line 849: TBA6

- Line 220: is this requirement met? If so, how? If not, suggest
dropping this line.

- Line 333:  it should be clear where PAS is first defined, how about:
   s/used/defined

- Line 365: as is out of scope:
  s/The PAS/For example, the PAS

- Line 435: should be clear that this isn't a new definition
  s/The Length/Per [RFC487], the Length

- Line 520: for future compatibility sake
 s/SHOULD/MUST

- There are a number of places with RFC2119 language needs to be
clarified -- this is the first
- Line 526: s/is/MUST be

- Line 615: should say something about the PCE-ID that is used with the
PAS, how about adding:
  The PCE-ID is carried in the Identifier Source Address field of the
subobject.

- Lines 645 (starting with "in")-686.  There really isn't any new
information here.  Why include it?  (I suggest dropping it)

- More RFC2119 language:
 Lines 703, 705, 707: s/may/MAY
 Line 724: s/MAY ignore it./SHOULD NOT process the signaled diversity
information.

- Section 3 is a bit light.  I think adding a sentence or two on how
this new subobject differs from existing SOs with respect to cross
domain information (e.g., contrast with the second paragraph of RFC4874
section 7.) would be helpful at a minimum.

- Lines 901-902
Needs to identify the 2 new SOs and should say that the same numeric
values as TBA1 and TB2 are being requested (at lease I think this was
the Author's intent.)

- I note that you have not created a registry for "DI Types".  I'm okay
with this assuming this was an intentional decision.  We can always
create the registry if/when there is forth type defined.

That's it!
Lou

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:30:22 -0400

All,

The last call is complete.

Authors,

Please discuss the resolution of any comments received (whether received
on or off list) on the list and update the draft accordingly.  Once all
comments are addressed in an updated rev, I'll submit for publication.

Thank you!
Lou