Re: [Pce] Poll on draft-dhody-pce-iro-update-02

Hi, Dhruv,

   Look fine to me. just a really minor comment, up to you to decide whether to update or not, :): instead of saying " an attribute called L bit ", maybe just state "L bit", coz i believe it is introduced earlier in the draft?

Cheers,
Xian

________________________________________
发件人: Dhruv Dhody
发送时间: 2015年1月13日 12:19
收件人: Zhangxian (Xian); julien.meuric@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
主题: RE: [Pce] Poll on draft-dhody-pce-iro-update-02

Hi Xian,

Thanks for your support and suggestion.

How about these changes -

OLD:
   The content of an IRO object is an ordered list of subobjects
   representing a series of abstract nodes.
NEW:
   The content of an IRO object MUST be an ordered list of subobjects
   representing a series of abstract nodes.

OLD:
   Further each subobject has an attribute
   called 'L bit', which is set if the subobject represents a loose hop.
   If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict hop.
NEW:
   Further, the loose or strict property of the subobject MUST be
   interpreted based on an attribute called 'L bit', which is set
   if the subobject represents a loose hop. If the bit is not set, the
   subobject represents a strict hop.

Regards,
Dhruv

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhangxian (Xian)
> Sent: 13 January 2015 09:09
> To: julien.meuric@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Pce] Poll on draft-dhody-pce-iro-update-02
>
> Support.
>
> A very straightforward draft, just one suggestion:
>
> Should the last paragraph of Section 2 be written in RFC2119 language?
> I notice the first sentence in this section uses MUST for providing
> background information. Other than that, no RFC2119 language is used.
>
> Regards,
> Xian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> julien.meuric@orange.com
> Sent: 2015年1月12日 19:44
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Poll on draft-dhody-pce-iro-update-02
>
> Dear PCE WG,
>
> Following our previous discussions on IRO within PCEP, do you agree
> with the adoption of draft-dhody-pce-iro-update-02 as a PCE WG I-D?
> Please share your comments using the mailing list, justifying as much
> as possible in case you are opposed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> JP & Julien
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> ____________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
> par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi
> que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
> d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
> be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
> and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce