Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2022-10-11
Requested 2022-09-27
Authors Quan Xiong
I-D last updated 2022-10-11
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Bo Wu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Shivan Kaul Sahib (diff)
Dnsdir Last Call review of -07 by Andrew Campling (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Bo Wu
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 09)
Result Has nits
Completed 2022-10-11
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.

The draft defines the PCE LSP object flag extension. The original 12 bits flags
have been allocated, but a new individual draft requires new flags. In summary,
the document is ready, with only small issues.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
The bits from 1 to 3 are assigned in [RFC8623] for Explicit
   Route Object (ERO)-compression, fragmentation and Point-to-Multipoint
   (P2MP) respectively.

[Bo Wu] Here uses ERO object. But the title and abstract say Label Switched
Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension, contradict?

5.  Backward Compatibility
   The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV defined in this document does not introduce any
   interoperability issues.
[Bo Wu] I feel there are interoperability issues introduced, correct? But the
issue will be resolved by the future use?

Nits/editorial comments:
The bit value 4 is assigned in [RFC8281] for create for PCE-Initiated
The bit value 4 is assigned in [RFC8281] for creation and deletion for
PCE-Initiated LSPs.