Re: [Pce] Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22: (with COMMENT)

[Cheng Li <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Dhruv for proposing the text, and Jim for your comments.

We have updated the draft accordingly, please see the update below.

Thanks,
Cheng



From: James Guichard <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 1:41 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Pce] Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22: (with COMMENT)

Thanks Dhruv that certainly reads better.

Jim

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 2:51:54 AM
To: James Guichard <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Jim Guichard's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22: (with COMMENT)

Hi Jim,

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Jim Guichard via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22: 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-segment-routing-ipv6/



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

Thank you for a well written document. Minor nit:

Section 3.1 - 2nd Paragraph. Please review this paragraph as it seems to say
that the MPLS mechanisms remain unchanged, but the text is difficult to parse.
Please make the meaning clear.

Yes, I can see that. The text aimed to clarify that in the case IPv6 is used (instead of IPv4) for SR-MPLS, the PCEP procedures are as per RFC 8664 and not this document.

How is this change ->

OLD:

   For the use of an IPv6 control plane but an MPLS data plane,

   mechanism remains the same as specified in [RFC8664].



   This document describes the extension to support SRv6 in PCEP.

NEW:

   When SR-MPLS is used with an IPv6 network, the PCEP procedures and

   mechanisms are as specified in [RFC8664].

   When SR leverages the IPv6 forwarding plane (i.e. SRv6), the PCEP

   procedures and mechanisms are extended in this document.
END

Thanks!
Dhruv




_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce