Cheng, Haomian, Stephane, Please review followup questions noted below and let us know how to proceed.
Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Mar 18, 2025, at 3:42 AM, Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Cheng, > > We have updated the document as described below except for the item you’ve > asked the authors to review. The updated files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753.html > > AUTH48 diffs: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Comprehensive files: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9753-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > > Please review our suggested update for the new text below and let us know if > you approve. > >> 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. > > > Based the NEW text, we suggest this update: > >> The scope of how P and I flags are applied is defined in [RFC5440] and is >> unchanged by this document. Therefore, these flags can only be applied to an >> entire PCEP >> object; they cannot be applied at the granularity of optional TLVs encoded >> in the PCEP Object. > > > > > Also, we see this text commented out in the XML file. Please consider > whether any action is needed; otherwise the notes will be removed. > > <!--Similarly in the case of an association group > <xref target="RFC8697"/> such as Disjoint Association <xref > > target="RFC8800"/>, the PCE may need to completely relax the > > disjointness constraint in order to provide a path to all the LSPs > > that are part of the association.—> > > <!--By default, the PCE SHOULD set the P > flag, unless a > > local configuration or local policy indicates that some constraints > > (corresponding PCEP objects) can be marked as optional and could be > > ignored by the PCC.--> > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/sg > > > > >> On Mar 12, 2025, at 2:07 AM, Cheng Li <c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> >> wrote: >> >> 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
