Hi Tom, WG, Speaking as a WG member...
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:30 PM tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > From: Pce <pce-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > <ssidor=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Sent: 10 January 2024 10:18 > > Hi PCE WG, > > I would like to ask for WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo on behalf of > authors. Are there any remaining issues/comments/questions which I (or > co-authors) missed and which are not handled yet? > > URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo/ > > <tp> > Well new to the PCE list may be I fear but I have a basic problem about > 'algorithm'. > > You reference RFC8665 and RFC 8667. In those it is always SR-Algorithm so > I think that that should be the spelling here. > > Dhruv: The container is SR-ERO and SRv6-ERO where the field "Algorithm" is being added. To me it is clear it is an SR-Algorithm. You will find the similar usage in other RFC i.e.the TLV is called SR-Algorithm TLV but the field inside is just Algorithm. > More fundamentally, 8665 sets up an IANA registry with two values, 0 and > 1, which tells me that 8665 is out of date as soon as it is published and > that all references should be to IANA and not the RFC. The update policy > is Standards Action. ADs regard additions to IANA registries as not > updating the RFC creating the registry so reading 8665 will not tell you > that it is out of date unless you read between the lines of the IANA > Considerations and go see what is current. > > Dhruv: It is usual for one to reference the RFC that created the registry, it is evident there will be future RFCs or documents that add more codepoints; the reference to the original RFC that created the registry is still valid. I don't recall anyone asking to explicitly reference the registry. That said, there is no harm in adding an additional reference to IANA. > It gets more problematic. The IANA registry was updated by RFC9350 which > keeps the same update criteria but splits the range into two 0-127 and > 128-255, the latter being flexible. > > s.4.2.1 talks of Flexible Algorithm with a Normative reference to RFC9350 > which begs the question as to the relationship between SR Algorithm and > Flexible Algorithm when used in this document. Either/or, Synonyms? > > Here and now it may all be obvious but in years to come with multiple > algorithms in use it will likely be unclear what you are referencing in > s.3.2, s.3.3, s.3.4; is it the range 0-127 or 0-255 or 128-255 or...? > > Dhruv: It is 0-255! Authors can make that explicit in the I-D. Thanks! Dhruv > Tom Petch > > > > Thanks a lot, > Samuel > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
