Hi Deb， Thanks for your comments! Please see my reply in-line with [Cheng]. We also have updated the draft, please check the diff https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-11 is ok for you or not.
Thanks, Cheng From: Deb Cooley <debcool...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 8:36 PM To: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optio...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Re: Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-10: (with COMMENT) w/ [dc] in front..... On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 1:55 AM Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote: Hi Deb, On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:15 PM Deb Cooley via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 3.2.1: It seems like the use of the R flag changes how the PCE handles the P flag. I'm not sure SHOULD (or BCP14 language) is optimal in this section. Does the PCE try hard to respect the P flag, but if it can't, then it ignores it? This sounds more like 'best effort'. I can't tell if this also might apply to the case where the 'PCC SHOULD set the P flag by default'. [note: I'm well outside of my expertise area here, I'm just trying to interpret what is here in a logical fashion.] Dhruv: Based on John's suggestion - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/wkJu_i0F4z3sNLd5o2s9bEXP7LM/, the plan is to change it to MUST. [dc] ok. [Cheng]Done, has changed. Sections 3.2 and 3.3: Would a small table with P, R, and I flags against PCC, PCE, and maybe the various extensions/message types might help? Dhruv: I remember this being suggested but the Authors claimed that such nested logic for flags is quite common in PCEP RFCs. [dc] common in the RFCs, sure. But clear and easy to implement correctly? IDK... [Cheng]We might keep it as is for now? if you are ok with this. Section 4: The last () is a bit puzzling. It might need some explanation. Is there something specific that is anticipated? RFC8253 is old enough that TLS1.3 wasn't published yet, but RFC 9325 obviously covers both TLS 1.2 and 1.3. Dhruv: As stated in the other thread. [dc] see my comments in the other thread. [Cheng]Deleted the text in (). "There are some details in Section 3.4 of RFC 8253 that might not be matching exactly to RFC 9325 - such as MUST for TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 in RFC 8253 where as RECOMMENDED in RFC 9325. And what you state is also true!" Thanks! Dhruv (as document shepherd)
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
