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
