Hi Sandy, Sorry for my delay. I think the current text is good to me.
Regarding the new text you suggested below, I think I can understand it without problem. And the current text in the link is also ok to me. Therefore, you can choose the better one from your point of view. 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. For the notes in the XML file(which are not shown in the text/website), I think they can be removed. Thanks, Cheng -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 11:42 AM To: Cheng Li <c...@huawei.com> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; Zhenghaomian <zhenghaom...@huawei.com>; slitkows.i...@gmail.com; pce-...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; d...@dhruvdhody.com; Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9753 <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13> for your review 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-4Q9l2USxI > Ae6P8O4Zc > > * 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
