[Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-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-association-bidir/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document. I must admit that this document
was too deep in PCE for a full review of mine, I am trusting my routing AD
peers for this review.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==
-- Section 3 --
Figure 2, should there be a LSP2 label on the link between C and F (as well as
between E and B) ? At the risk of overloading the figure though...

-- Section 3.1.1 --
Suggest to mention that the topology of figure 1 is reused.

== NITS ==

-- Section 1 --
Is "Path Control Element (PCE)" correct or is it "Path Computation Element
(PCE) " (per RFC Editor abbreviation list) ?