[Pce] In prep for adoption call for draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Can you please upload a new version of the I-D that tidies up the document
in preparation for WG adoption call?

- Limit the number of authors to 5
- Add text to the security consideration section (add references to
relevant rfcs if no new security threat is assumed)
- Think about adding a mangebility consideration
- Instead of saying that the applicability to RSVP-TE and SR-TE better yet
say it is applicable to all path setup types!
- I am confused by - "For example

   Adjacency SIDs MAY be used, but Prefix SIDs MUST NOT be used (even if

there is only one adjacency). the PCE MUST use Adjacency SIDs only."; are
Adj SID "MAY" or "MUST"?? It should be MUST right?
- What is the way to indicate that a computed path no longer meets the
original constraints when the recomputation is blocked? Isn't that
something that is useful for operators to know?
- When the P flag is cleared or the TLV is not present, we fall back to the
existing scenario and in which one would assume PCE does the recomputation
based on various triggers yet the draft uses "MAY recompute"... could this
be a "SHOULD"?
- Add implementation Status if you have plans of implementations!

Thanks!
Dhruv