Subject: [Pce] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 11:07:54 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-12: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG 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-p2mp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 7.2.

"The special value of all zeros for this TLV is used to refer to all paths
pertaining to a particular PLSP-ID."

Can you clarify what fields are all zero? What would the length be?

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 23:53:13 +0530

Hi Suresh,

Thanks for your review!

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp/

All fields of the value portion of the TLV are set to zero. The TLVs
has a fixed length of 16 and 40 for IPv4 and IPv6 respectively.
RFC8231 (section 7.3.1) also uses similar language for the TLV defined
there. Do you see a need to update text and be explicit?

Thanks!
Dhruv

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 22:43:58 +0000

Hi Dhruv,

> On Apr 9, 2019, at 2:23 PM, Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Suresh,
> 
> Thanks for your review!
> 

It would be nice to add but I will leave it to your discretion. 

Thanks
Suresh