Hi RFC Editors,

Please see my reply inline. Thanks for your work!

Specially, authors, please review this modification proposal.


OLD:
Further, it should be noted that similar to
   handling of P and I flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies to full PCEP
   Object and could not be applied to the granularity of an optional
   TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object.


NEW:

   This document does not modify the scope that P and I flags can be applied 
to, as defined in [RFC5440]. Therefore, these flags will only be applied to an 
entire PCEP
   object, and cannot be applied to the granularity of an optional TLVs encoded 
in the PCEP Object.

Authors, please review this change.


Thanks,
Cheng

-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> 
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 7:24 AM
To: Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com>; Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; 
slitkows.i...@gmail.com
Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org; pce-...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; 
d...@dhruvdhody.com; r...@cert.org; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13> 
for your review

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the 
following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the 
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->
[Cheng] PCEP, Stateful, optional processing

2) <!-- [rfced]  We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Please consider 
whether the suggested text conveys the intended meaning. 

Original: 
   [RFC5440] describes the handling of unknown objects as per the
   setting of the P flag for the PCReq message.

Perhaps:
   Setting the P flag in the PCReq message to handle unknown objects 
   is as described in Section 7.2 of [RFC5440].  
-->
[Cheng]OK


3) <!-- [rfced] Does marking something as optional allow the PCEP peer to 
ignore the object?  If yes, may we update the text as follows? 

Original:
   In these cases, it would be useful to mark
   the objects as 'optional' and they could be ignored by the PCEP peer.

Perhaps:
   In these cases, it would be useful to mark
   the objects as 'optional' so they could be ignored by the PCEP peer.
-->
[Cheng]OK

4) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this text.  It refers to the P 
and I flags, but then switches to "the flag".  Does "the flag" refer to the R 
flag, which has not yet been introduced?  Please review and let us know how the 
text may be clarified. 

Original (prior sentence included for context):
   Thus, this document specifies how the already existing P and I flags
   in the PCEP common object header could be used during the stateful
   PCEP message exchange.  Further, it should be noted that similar to
   handling of P and I flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies to full PCEP
   Object and could not be applied to the granularity of an optional
   TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object.

Perhaps:
   Further, it should be noted that, similar to
   handling of P and I flags in [RFC5440], the flag indicating that the 
   constraint has been relaxed applies to the full PCEP object and cannot 
   be applied at the granularity of an optional TLV encoded in the PCEP 
   object.
-->
[Cheng]I do not think 'the flag' is correct here. It should not be the R flag, 
but the 'P and I flags'. After discussing with Dhruv, we confirm that we should 
use the flags(P and I flags). Please see the new text below.

OLD:
Further, it should be noted that similar to
   handling of P and I flags in [RFC5440], the flag applies to full PCEP
   Object and could not be applied to the granularity of an optional
   TLVs encoded in the PCEP Object.


NEW:

   This document does not modify the scope that P and I flags can be applied 
to, as defined in [RFC5440]. Therefore, these flags will only be applied to an 
entire PCEP
   object, and cannot be applied to the granularity of an optional TLVs encoded 
in the PCEP Object.

Authors, please review this change.



5) <!-- [rfced] PCUpd seems to be exapnded slightly differently in two places.  
Based on what we see in RFC 8231 (see below), we don't believe the terms are 
interchangeable.  Please review and let us know how/if these should be made 
consistent?  Perhaps Section 3.3.2 can just refer to PCUpd and PCInitiate since 
those terms are introduced earlier in the document?  

Section 1:    Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd)
   This document defines a new flag, the R
   (RELAX) flag in STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the PCEP common object
   header to indicate a PCE speaker supporting P and I flags processing,
   and also specifies how the P and I flags could be used in the
   stateful PCE model to identify optional objects in the Path
   Computation State Report (PCRpt) [RFC8231], the Path Computation
   Update Request (PCUpd) [RFC8231], and the LSP Initiate Request
   (PCInitiate) [RFC8281] message.

Section 3.3.2: LSP Update Request (PCUpd)
   The I flag in the PCRpt message [RFC8231] allows a PCC to indicate to
   a PCE whether or not an optional object was processed in response to
   an LSP Update Request (PCUpd) or LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate).


From RFC 8231:
   Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd)

Section 6.2 of RFC 8231: 
   A PCUpd message can carry more than one LSP
   Update Request.
-->
[Cheng]It takes few minutes to understand the problem. Ha, we can change LSP 
update request to PCUpd message, and LSP Initiate request to PCinit message. 
The purpose is not to emphasize the LSP, but the message.


6) <!-- [rfced] We are having trouble parsing this sentence.  Please consider 
whether the suggested text is more clear.  Otherwise, please clarify. 

Original:
   This document updates the handling of unknown objects in the stateful
   PCEP messages as per the setting of the P flag in the common object
   header in a similar way as [RFC5440], i.e. if a PCEP speaker does not
   understand an object with the P flag set or understands the object
   but decides to ignore the object, the entire stateful PCEP message
   MUST be rejected and the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
   Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported Object" [RFC5440].

Perahps:
   This document updates the handling of unknown objects in the stateful
   PCEP messages by setting the P flag in the common object
   header in a similar way as described in [RFC5440].  That is, if a 
   PCEP speaker does not understand an object with the P flag set, or 
   if the PCEP speaker understands the object
   but decides to ignore the object, the entire stateful PCEP message
   MUST be rejected, and the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
   Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" [RFC5440].
-->

[Cheng]ok, thanks! Will avoid to use 'as per' next time, and try to make the 
subject of a sentence clear 😊


7) <!-- [rfced] Note that we have lowercased "object" when it appears as "PCEP 
object" to align with use in the referenced RFCs (e.g., 9753, 5440).  
Please let us know if any updates are needed.
-->
[Cheng]please follow the best practice, I am ok with lowercase or uppercase. 
Thanks.


8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the 
online Style Guide 
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.  Updates of this nature 
typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
[Cheng]no change needed, thanks!

I have review the diff file, the modification is ok to me.


Thank you.

RFC Editor



On Mar 9, 2025, at 11:16 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2025/03/09

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9753

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC 9753 (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13)

Title            : Extension for Stateful PCE to allow Optional Processing of 
PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Objects
Author(s)        : C. Li, H. Zheng, S. Litkowski
WG Chair(s)      : Julien Meuric, Dhruv Dhody

Area Director(s) : Jim Guichard, John Scudder, Gunter Van de Velde



-- 
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org

Reply via email to