Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@mail2.ietf.org Delivered-To: pce@mail2.ietf.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0475D73EF1F3; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 02:44:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.886 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cisco.com Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D1CJs6hhrkbW; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 02:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F7F173EF170; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 02:43:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=30353; q=dns/txt; s=iport01; t=1760521425; x=1761731025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=xrAVjEMlMJGn/CHYl5HJcwiBsZ9VjWKdKKcHs1eFOuM=; b=RDMSdldJKs7OaNMopTYGO64IyDTgLAHY9OXgjT9MvSeFX6W0dCrqJ1PA T9B12x6I9Wv/mRIVlBXzEFxdxwJHeWZTiCB7rDXDpco9ijIvOFuRNNsdB iM6neyB+xVEi8UgDEPCwOJ54mpbdX9ryczuQej/f5ExC4RZFTiXbbSXaf 3EdvQGzOjyKBvhKiQg1qQI5ihoXd2vnjuIaQlB0F5WJIFHkv9JUlCimFn X4fDUpkM2ZekhIzWO2TWpZEFD46YEUDDD7ARTduRN+XDt/9WNZEOvvDnP N/M533DHzWno+qFT4ec9YenqRi6AKlE4nCD5GEIEu9N7s3Rtc+5Yd/0QH g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 9BS3zJDtSsSRX+LqH79v0g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Pk/V58ThSgChbb46ib4soQ== X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BfAAAna+9o/5EQJK1aHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQFAJ?= =?us-ascii?q?YEZBQEBCwGBPDFSB3uBDhJJiCADhSyIeAOeGhSBaw8BAQENAkQNBAEBhQcCj?= =?us-ascii?q?EsCJjYHDgECBAEBAQEDAgMBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQsBAQUBAQECAQcFgQ4Thk8Nh?= =?us-ascii?q?loBAQEBAxJnEAIBCA4DAwEBASEBDTEdCAIEAQ0FCBqCYYIdVgMBAg4GpDUBg?= =?us-ascii?q?UACiit4gTSBAYNsQdtzBoFKAYhQASqBNIQOO4Q9JxuBSUSBFAFCgmg+gmEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAYEoARIBIx0BBgERg12CLwSCDRV6FB2GE3mBMUeNY1JyIgMmMywBVRMXC?= =?us-ascii?q?wcFgSBDAyo0LSNLBS0dgScSEB8cE2BUQINJEAsGaA8GgRMZSQICAgUCQjqBa?= =?us-ascii?q?QUBHAYfEgIDAQICOlcNgXcCAgSCLoESgioPhSUDC209NxQbBQSBNQWREAc7G?= =?us-ascii?q?SyBbRUtHwE9JgQiDQwWAnsEGUcGHQJzkmoKOY8Ujl+TWYE+CoQcjB6PQYYuF?= =?us-ascii?q?4QEjROYbWeZBiKCNoswlWiFJgIEAgQFAhABAQaBbwE0RiNwcBWCbgEBATFSG?= =?us-ascii?q?Q+OLRaIcbl8eAI6AgcLAQEDCZNnAQE?= IronPort-PHdr: A9a23:orpXTh1P3I4QHohFsmDPmlBlVkEcU/3cJAUZ7N8gk71RN//l9JX5N 0uZ7vJo3xfFXoTevupNkPGe87vhVmoJ/YubvTgcfYZNWR4IhYRenwEpDMOfT0yuBPXrdCc9W s9FUTdY IronPort-Data: A9a23:oqaXyKqiPRGKUyvkam8MLxVT9bZeBmIaZBIvgKrLsJaIsI4StFCzt garIBnUMqrZZmD8LY9zOYTkpk8H6JfUzN9kTVBspSFhFiMTouPIVI+TRqvS04x+DSFioGZPt Zh2hgzodZhsJpPkjk7zdOCn9z8ljPvgqoPUUIbsIjp2SRJvVBAvgBdin/9RqoNziLBVOSvV0 T/Ji5OZYQ7NNwJcaDpOtvvb8U435ZwehRtB1rAATaET1LPhvyF94KI3fcmZM3b+S49IKe+2L 86r5K255G7Q4yA2AdqjlLvhGmVSKlIFFVHT4pb+c/HKbilq/kTe4I5iXBYvQRs/ZwGyojxE4 I4lWapc5useFvakdOw1C3G0GszlVEFM0OevzXOX6aR/w6BaGpfh660GMa04AWEX0rddOjpc1 9AEEys2VCDAo/uWn+OlEuY506zPLOGzVG8eknhkyTecCbMtRorOBv2ao9RZxzw3wMtJGJ4yZ eJANmEpN0qGOkMJYwtKYH49tL/Aan3XaCZZpFWPjaE2+GPUigd21dABNfKIKoDaGZ0FxBfwS mTux2e+PExKCNykxhGF+Hjw2O7FwTj8YddHfFG/3rsw6LGJ/UQfEhQYSR66rOW3z1a1VpdEK kBR8y4hqoAz+VClCN7nUHWQoXOfsTYdVsZeVeog52ml0qHZpg2ZD2keVRZAZcAo8sgsSlQCz lSEt9LkGTIpt6eaIU9x7Z+dqTe0fCxQJmgYaGpcHU0O4sLop8c4iRenostfLZNZR+bdQFnY6 zuLtyM5wb4UiKY2O2+Tpwqb695wjvAlljII2zg= IronPort-HdrOrdr: A9a23:K7UaOKCrvwb/wSzlHejRsseALOsnbusQ8zAXPh9KOH9om52j9/ xGws576fatskduZJhBo7y90KnpewK7yXcH2/hhAV7CZniohILGFvAZ0WKP+UyFJ8S6zJ8j6U 4CSdkxNDSTNykGsS+S2mDReLhQoqjjzEnrv5aj854Hd3ASV0gU1XYDNu/tKDwPeOApP+tfKL OsouB8i36Lf3MRYs6nBn8DcdTiirTw/q7OUFotPTJizBOBow+JxdfBfiRw2C1wbxp/hZMZtU TVmQ3w4auu99uhzAXH6mPV55NK3PP819pqHqW3+4goAwSprjztSJVqWrWEsjxwivqo8kwWnN 7FpAplF9hv6knWYnq+rXLWqkrdOXcVmj3fIG2j8D/eSP/CNXUH4g169MRkmy7img8dVRdHof t2NiyixsJq5Fj77VTADpDzJmJXfwyP0DsfeSp5tQ0EbWPYA4Uh9rA37QdbFowNEzn9751iGO 5yDNvE7PITal+CaWvF11MfiuBEc05DVitueHJy8fC9wnxThjR03kEYzMsQkjMJ8488UYBN46 DBPr5znL9DQ8cKZeYlbd1xDfefGyjIW1bBIWiSKVPoGOUOPG/MsYf+5PEw6PuxcJIFwZMukN DKUU9et2Q1Z0XyYPf+kaFj41TIWiGwTD7twsZR69xwvaD9XqPiNWmZRFUng6Kb0rwi6w3gKo CO0b5tcojexDHVaPN09hy7X4MXMnUXWtAUvNEgMmj+0P4jAreawtDmTA== X-Talos-CUID: 9a23:LXUM6mG3QWSgb3D1qmI23nVPCOIJbkbG903gYGuhKTk4VuWaHAo= X-Talos-MUID: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Ap/0inQyDijwdPUvtEroYC+/yu2WaqJytT35Qwak?= =?us-ascii?q?GgMavNSZ6Z2mchmisRbZyfw=3D=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true Received: from alln-l-core-08.cisco.com ([173.36.16.145]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384; 15 Oct 2025 09:43:34 +0000 Received: from rcdn-opgw-3.cisco.com (rcdn-opgw-3.cisco.com [72.163.7.164]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by alln-l-core-08.cisco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FC5F18000501; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:43:34 +0000 (GMT) X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 2/SH6aKpSCuPywWJOtMBiQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: +cYZhrW/RE+v6i1UhIB/9A== Authentication-Results: rcdn-opgw-3.cisco.com; dkim=pass (signature verified) header.i=@cisco.com X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.19,230,1754956800"; d="scan'208,217";a="45439812" Received: from mail-ch4pr07cu00106.outbound.protection.outlook.com (HELO CH4PR07CU001.outbound.protection.outlook.com) ([40.93.20.102]) by rcdn-opgw-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384; 15 Oct 2025 09:43:33 +0000 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector10001; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Yi+xB/u1akuHV4o8lDZvD6+utldFcP3ShWqznMSNiZ4IZDhbbtjSljXV1oJbetp8/lYXpEcejHw37tA6XAyEXsiXlrzMmbSoeU+EDhn0DPezyinhWLbpaR0Azq6DpsTc/4b40r/6InIL7qbantzipqQRRhXZ5ffH5QLP2GIxMX+wImDdZjHj8j/I0WZS5QgFVQLeFULdHIdttvnuRyDbpGOu5lfkDGtemV2P8nm9PrjFfUCDnf3pbP3pi5HqdTMy/Bpee9kVJWCoUHcB+w1GfiZ1jLh7HxhGgVI/Lcil6L7oG4+X+C7TwYCQ4q29YZ0/Ao/WTNb7GX59GueN41Ni1Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector10001; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=xrAVjEMlMJGn/CHYl5HJcwiBsZ9VjWKdKKcHs1eFOuM=; b=saa3mhfzPjwnoHAuO16eUp6MVjLALX3rqjVtVQpQ7OhCOCv3iFwmqEDykwz9AxswXY4KsRtd7PkMDQFJ7JkEC6aFL68KcdV3u3p0fhBheVyxlG9FVHTr5AUTxIWp5HeOJZI/vpXJkKLmHVJ1y7qL9SHs2hoHtHMWhhwHe4NcRIYwMjm1LzqzINWGJwhDDXY/R/j2tVQGuW/bDXbVYy8ljtgecrEFi5c7WIO16Q0Wv2LyN6uOYebQMXFygZ6KLvKR79VG1M2CdO32wGLB6lUUPpFenHDye7q2wxLZxVx3i3xkv/Qz3P6YVvnm6MtD60nLNOT+/6bpsnUO4v7XCBC9Vg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none Received: from IA0PR11MB7792.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:409::16) by IA1PR11MB7869.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:3f6::7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.9228.11; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:43:31 +0000 Received: from IA0PR11MB7792.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::385b:609e:4289:5e04]) by IA0PR11MB7792.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::385b:609e:4289:5e04%5]) with mapi id 15.20.9228.010; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:43:31 +0000 From: "Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" To: Mike Bishop , "Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" , The IESG Thread-Topic: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHcNvGgU7HKOeL7skenogQvFqcoa7S4lWbKgAD+8WOABwBSAIACbYQK Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2025 09:43:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <175977642221.3887171.11684559633187814997@dt-datatracker-6c6cdf7f94-h6rnn> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-reactions: allow x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: IA0PR11MB7792:EE_|IA1PR11MB7869:EE_ x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c981ebbc-9d0f-431e-85bd-08de0bcf4d17 x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;ARA:13230040|366016|1800799024|376014|38070700021|7053199007|13003099007|8096899003; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: =?Windows-1252?Q?1N64GvVY0HvvPcEzAUlxkuy27OiiayAJ96vdkkj7azQ3hMN51QaLcBV7?= =?Windows-1252?Q?+y4jiyNVvOsWAvEOuk0semL0A66U1/sIHn/EMXONOBy5xWkG+VCE5qpd?= =?Windows-1252?Q?Oc0T+c4j/D2+BVBQCT9F0cZYa+4YohENmLv/5D6mBf1ntF8i/w+OhIGR?= =?Windows-1252?Q?3eRZ2PWRDH8gE+M68RuVVtiQu12mZ5MEiYOqSn18WUQe5uhYL1JyJk1w?= =?Windows-1252?Q?nEoSLesaIq5H5z+ymguOzK4QDEMPzUycnt5RtYd6mE9U3gM9mQvYdrRB?= =?Windows-1252?Q?/RZbjNXs6g1vuFd5zg8AlKunugBj3qO8tg65pvH7vp6J8TGbat2sDSQt?= =?Windows-1252?Q?1wYybNNKvqmPs9AdkoN7ksfAUgxo4XL5LkGqTZ+FNoxVFNGjlB9i1p1Z?= =?Windows-1252?Q?RCgCYCVrh/pBA9+waYfnlppQyOxDQiSom79cJxEJEKE81iq3e5urpHkR?= =?Windows-1252?Q?5WKj6A/y8pP8WAe3q45qIwH6oiQG0HXVZPqzzv3QOo1jiDUJODiT7fCG?= =?Windows-1252?Q?bjHyN/SekfMdKklCaYiicN0AJth4uuOhRAC3dJT7cBZerOpokgPT7IYz?= =?Windows-1252?Q?uCha/evvL9Wtdig3gQOatDICaS8XduFFQV+Y9pgDeYEj+rLAKZBVcx/W?= =?Windows-1252?Q?TM0AJ7fwv5HGZ2/J7EqNyhatBuPwvw7cIvMwbhk6eN/LHU4LXVij146K?= =?Windows-1252?Q?UB8yIgjuYeL+rYnFqwGemIVNU9O8tF72gUcL/pyKQGUUg6FCgGX5kpmW?= =?Windows-1252?Q?Tey41mZGukuorsgu3CEBgTb0+qxANB3gh+rv6OD+Uo8Rg0qxO34curtp?= =?Windows-1252?Q?80f9XEuloaWrokyvMisN7VqLPn6duGYCFB8Tvacss8m7nvlSZE3zPv7i?= =?Windows-1252?Q?G7ZgIpw2HM/HLP6Fz9Tj/quKZ+Yx76lGwwmKSHPlBobG9kcKa8m+Rmaf?= =?Windows-1252?Q?1hBmsJvenKCh0MGd5RqiL1mK0K/9I6/XzSi8dWJobIbI4v4BJ9JuCFbb?= =?Windows-1252?Q?BhIFg3WVsKI8FuFe7QpagL6c34HoFAZtFBWEsN/JpX7HNGT4VBzIISHJ?= =?Windows-1252?Q?Ja+32MJQ4wlF/4wSNCCn4iyJqQRdyPfEVkheS7J6drOC7Ut4eWIjJOwv?= =?Windows-1252?Q?5oTuw9FWcu/LMFQF8T0JVap9uL/kdo+e2Q6R9jmrNlKTGCVHLUZH18HM?= =?Windows-1252?Q?WZwFcLDGwcHitB2UNFUBraroMOtWm5LLq1ySIGfRc/SxHxWxbYk9Y02n?= =?Windows-1252?Q?rqf9N7IbYAT0myeSy4wnM/ouDO9zRzX1NUH1Ed+Q6vEtWUJpmhsyTPEa?= =?Windows-1252?Q?N9Kh7tonlDRPA9G/63dwCHOtWaB6FHr/47jfjh0GoiHMvs0srBhRtdfJ?= =?Windows-1252?Q?7Ki8Z7SRFseuroPPavTKaputSRZD5LG0ckncazYu7c2HZaUZJKG93Bi2?= =?Windows-1252?Q?p7RzsIrrnIS7RA+a9hedLHK5sTst+E+mHG7Nelq7G2dLrtERRaiPiqlw?= =?Windows-1252?Q?BK3jhoptFXJIA0/HQNOlXlRYs4lNV2/c3pUFh96/kbWyLtHMz0j957bn?= =?Windows-1252?Q?uYUe9b4MacCNLpuDUAP6+VOOQly/QjgBCwVH+oIxtMKi6X3AhCu8grg8?= =?Windows-1252?Q?LaEHtZnkeqFo/jSSpvTggNEVYA8cgn+4Ety+sJDi7mu6oA=3D=3D?= x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255;CTRY:;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:IA0PR11MB7792.namprd11.prod.outlook.com;PTR:;CAT:NONE;SFS:(13230040)(366016)(1800799024)(376014)(38070700021)(7053199007)(13003099007)(8096899003);DIR:OUT;SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: =?Windows-1252?Q?CbHg0DAWTrryDBiK1S5RQLL18U/zFWV1dMP4NUzbfAqj5ILrVX+wXOGH?= =?Windows-1252?Q?gg7qQl/DSYD+QUJt7/m53F9yVXi75pBF5an6v9o4MWQsODDsyhGTXDKW?= =?Windows-1252?Q?JAzK5XUHa1NwHmEwoB3JjK21/FmnzjJRmGEokMRowB0G/F3y3ChKRPTv?= =?Windows-1252?Q?7FYlSiySrQUpnaZ8gIvWxLNR9f9P8mnzi9rxJOGKe5jOvjTJpSnqmcUN?= =?Windows-1252?Q?TtDB/mm56vpVqjQ+F0/NoLH47gOBDRxsJ0GZRtKln6xiXqI0h9/pDEpA?= =?Windows-1252?Q?lEzOzYQF+turbx2FvRRpZPX6KWxaRUgMAcp2QhY0Gv8DND+8oRpwweFf?= =?Windows-1252?Q?fx0ugugp88U7y10U2u7p6wgAvgXGw4iQUpo1cPqyGFAtuCifqGIqH/qm?= =?Windows-1252?Q?vdzsZR6IEtByaE8jwxsqmy77fXQPHLcacCtnkYxZoNRQCy1QYYvJC88J?= =?Windows-1252?Q?IVkDlh5L2VUy1dI4q7/1FH0rjG/U0euOXR69Rto6X0fRbgvVC+4sMInN?= =?Windows-1252?Q?+3b89AnfxK6oc2aoZ0WeaEm7hMcVnhODtUqTvE3ZQJ9oDZnaPMEhW7Zv?= =?Windows-1252?Q?0EUymj7TPEQDcuWZSQxutTijNWsWe4NWQda3ouYbPsDRsUYMu2BQH4Kp?= =?Windows-1252?Q?09hkc1f0mDSntcZp4cSjazwQKMw3KW4RrzrZtMYyQSFei/Ka3ae4lf80?= =?Windows-1252?Q?+uVIuG254UV9trmf4dspBeW/3luTu+xUQLaiTw/QM14/xh/Vl5y0joXb?= =?Windows-1252?Q?CQdywcNeXUuDzCrYIXIBblutFzdWogR5BOOL4P/NBY3P+g2q8vx2fO9L?= =?Windows-1252?Q?ARwYyEj3Ih6AMoLYoYxFXkGxCdPINQOw/qbA8GGj48hAybNqs4gV3lBv?= =?Windows-1252?Q?jXyZHwPAzdwsmB75tf0qHIExvtV2j20LsLAtDvW8a7CFFl3CJMZjkRSk?= =?Windows-1252?Q?KOmZOpcQQFgReDGkS7KdkjXq5IrFjE5mRBWE8oG/lbOCF7IsFF41OJs6?= =?Windows-1252?Q?UoAtIJY1KBW/516b475F7//wugaJbM6s1Gqc2rrLC9SA0LHW32UlmJLv?= =?Windows-1252?Q?+9rBG6BKwsWrrmoXat7VVEWBezcl+hR6/1ZcyUH80M5tRcGNTpFABxdr?= =?Windows-1252?Q?/Su2SgsevwSPLAzhc1pdINkcd/Ugd0PmVhYQKT4/BjRzKKTAO/On2w7R?= =?Windows-1252?Q?ghLayNjAtw1Z45aAXMTuq4WmBKS6CrYHRW5444/oOwYAnM3gyhukztZF?= =?Windows-1252?Q?oH00XVyHdOwckfIg0uqsNPnavVv+OHCzmRQvW5CphaYsodHkXKlBuC1Q?= =?Windows-1252?Q?7qCbueWdu9EUIyyIB2Jc/5/gbEklMTDrb37M/c/ENG3o64lM6jKXwNct?= =?Windows-1252?Q?StkmfP7QOe12X3yJGxjpWWCpn64KOp2DAISj5HZ6oxip4/ypybbnGoyn?= =?Windows-1252?Q?QJMhVck4mNfswErFUMlozGV4oyY1LCpnKWiVzL6XXBySAta693XU+OgA?= =?Windows-1252?Q?AHk83CwMtKHj3uPJwpzmCBHJFPcY7AIX0nhDZy5O210XCRcjjKra9JqI?= =?Windows-1252?Q?DOH/2LGipVI3DCBFoT8fQPtvBoMhUk2cPtYdmDzeb62Wr8rR7yXC97OM?= =?Windows-1252?Q?pQKRK9p6X0EFnkpCcm8cY15nm9Q9E0dIfXlZlGKOTDebIAEBq4oMf30K?= =?Windows-1252?Q?VP6lcckVsLUqE23XXjUIMMTn2rm5Zih2/YBii6Ka6RCc64sFqRRwuA?= =?Windows-1252?Q?=3D=3D?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_IA0PR11MB7792D3BE2675E8BE8F436A46D0E8AIA0PR11MB7792namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: IA0PR11MB7792.namprd11.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c981ebbc-9d0f-431e-85bd-08de0bcf4d17 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Oct 2025 09:43:31.2292 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 2NR7ZhMiVeaEE9HU8owWD1OR6XQPgzlFZqk8uQoofOKO86JYkKhnBQ05NIYxOBYDAOQT5E4B1CILNU/XAm/mKg== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: IA1PR11MB7869 X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 72.163.7.164, rcdn-opgw-3.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: alln-l-core-08.cisco.com Message-ID-Hash: LDZDVSWHFAPQ3YAFD6LYWQVGIDYEXMHD X-Message-ID-Hash: LDZDVSWHFAPQ3YAFD6LYWQVGIDYEXMHD X-MailFrom: ssidor@cisco.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pce.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: "draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org" , "pce-chairs@ietf.org" , "pce@ietf.org" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BPce=5D_Re=3A_Mike_Bishop=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-pce-sid?= =?utf-8?q?-algo-25=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?= List-Id: Path Computation Element Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --_000_IA0PR11MB7792D3BE2675E8BE8F436A46D0E8AIA0PR11MB7792namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks a lot, Mike, Submitted version 28 which is expanding those abbreviations as well and als= o added xref into section 6.2. Regards, Samuel From: Mike Bishop Date: Monday, 13 October 2025 at 22:38 To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) , The IESG <= iesg@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org , pc= e-chairs@ietf.org , pce@ietf.org , dd@dh= ruvdhody.com Subject: Re: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25: (wit= h COMMENT) These all look fine. For the abbreviations, I agree the current format is an improvement. What I= was suggesting was something like the following.... CURRENT: This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC8664]: NAI and SR-DB. CONSIDER: This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC8664]: Node or Adjacency Identifier (NAI) and= Segment Routing Database (SR-DB). In Section 6.2, I was suggesting that they be marked with xref elements, no= t for update reasons since obviously they won't change, but for ease of rea= ders clicking through to the spot you're referencing. Neither suggestion is blocking, however, and you're welcome to handle these= style questions however you like. Thanks for your work on this! ________________________________ From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 6:30 AM To: Mike Bishop ; The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org ; pc= e-chairs@ietf.org ; pce@ietf.org ; dd@dh= ruvdhody.com Subject: Re: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25: (wit= h COMMENT) Hi Mike, Please find inline responses . Thanks a lot, Samuel From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Date: Wednesday, 8 October 2025 at 20:34 To: Mike Bishop , The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org , pc= e-chairs@ietf.org , pce@ietf.org , dd@dh= ruvdhody.com Subject: Re: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25: (wit= h COMMENT) Thanks a lot, Mike for comments provided. I=92m working on those and I=92ll submit another version with changes inclu= ded (those are not included yet in version 26). Regards, Samuel From: Mike Bishop via Datatracker Date: Monday, 6 October 2025 at 20:47 To: The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org , pc= e-chairs@ietf.org , pce@ietf.org , dd@dh= ruvdhody.com , dd@dhruvdhody.com Subject: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25: (with CO= MMENT) Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25: 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-sid-algo/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for a well-sourced terminology section. Many of these terms are abbreviations, and I would encourage you to include the expanded term here (with the abbreviation in parentheses) alongside the reference to the RFC t= hat defines them. Also consider moving FAD and the RFC9050 reference to the top with the same format as the other RFCs where terms are imported. I also not= ed the terms "headend router" and "RRO" used in the document without definitio= ns here. Added RRO, moved FAD references. For =93headend=94 - replaced it with PCC. For expanding abbreviations - I can do that, but we changed format of those= based on comments to current format, see original version: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-16.html There appear to be too many words here: 415 * If no SEBF (including A flag defined in this document) is set= , the 416 Length value MUST match the requirements as defined in 417 Section 5.2.1 of [RFC8664] applies. I think this should be either "MUST follow the requirements defined in Sect= ion 5.2.1 of [RFC8664]." or "If no SEBF (...) is set, the requirements in Secti= on 5.2.1 of [RFC8664] apply.=94 Updated to =93MUST follow the requirements defined" Throughout the document, the following sets of terms are used inconsistentl= y. Please pick one for each and use it throughout. - 'A flag', 'the A flag', '= the A-flag', 'the A bit', '"A" flag' - "Subobject Extension Block", "the Subobj= ect Extension Block" - "IEEE floating-point format", "floating point format" "I= EEE floating point" - "Flexible Algorithm", "Flex-algo", "Flex-Algorithm=94 Should be more consistent now. Hopefully I updated all of them In 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, normative requirements are placed on future extensions. That doesn't really affect implementers of this specification, and they can= 't be enforced on those future drafts. Instead, reframe this as guidance to th= ose future draft authors and/or as affirmative statements about what can be don= e in the future. If there is behavior required now to enable those future extens= ions (e.g. "if an SEBF is set that you don't understand, fail"), normative requirements for those would be appropriate here. Ack, updated. In Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, please include the appropriate reference to th= e definition of the floating point format (as you did in 4.5.1) or consider making this a definition used in the Terminology section. Added to remaining 2 sections. The reference to "Section 5.1, Section 5.1.2, and Section 5.2" is awkward, especially as 5.1.2 is within 5.1. Consider making this "Sections 5.1 and 5= .2" or simply "defined in this document" / "defined in this section". Are there multiple extensions here, or a single extension that involves multiple new elements? Updated to "Sections 5.1 and 5.2=94. We are trying to make sure that fo= r example new metric types introduced are not covered. In Section 5.2.2, should "The PCE must optimize" be "The PCE MUST optimize"= or "The PCE optimizes=94? Updated to =93The PCE MUST optimize =3D=3D=3DNITS FOLLOW=3D=3D=3D Section 3, "the mechanisms" =3D> "mechanisms" Section 5.2, "different SR-Algorithm constraint" =3D> "different SR-Algorit= hm constraints" or "a different SR-Algorithm constraint"; "use empty ERO" =3D>= "use an empty ERO"? Section 5.2.2, "introduced IANA registry" =3D> "created an I= ANA registry" Section 5.3, "new metric types defined in this document." =3D> "t= he new metric types defined in this document." or simply "the metric types defined= in this document." Section 6, "to PCEP extensions defined in this document" = =3D> "to the PCEP extensions defined in this document" and similar throughout the section Section 6.2, "for PCEP peer" =3D> "for the PCEP peer" Section 6.2, several of these section references would ideally be cross-references rathe= r than bare section numbers Updated for nits. For references - do you mean references to existing RFCs (is there a risk t= hat those will change?) or references for sections inside of the document? --_000_IA0PR11MB7792D3BE2675E8BE8F436A46D0E8AIA0PR11MB7792namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks a lot, Mike,

Submitted version 2= 8 which is expanding those abbreviations as well and also added xref into section 6.2.

Regards,
Samuel

From: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Date: Monday, 13 October 2025 at 22:38
To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor=3D40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>= ;, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@iet= f.org>, pce-chairs@ietf.org <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org &l= t;pce@ietf.org>, dd@dhruvdhody.com <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Subject: Re: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-2= 5: (with COMMENT)

These all look fine. 

For the abbreviations, I agree the current format is an improvement. What I= was suggesting was something like the following....

CURRENT:  This document uses the = following terms defined in [RFC8664]: NAI and SR-DB.
CONSIDER: This document uses the follo= wing terms defined in [RFC8664]: Node or Adjacency Identifier (NAI) and Segment Routing Database (SR-DB).

In Section 6.2, I was suggesting that they be marked with xref elements, no= t for update reasons since obviously they won't change, but for ease of rea= ders clicking through to the spot you're referencing.

Neither suggestion is blocking, however, and you're welcome to handle these= style questions however you like.

Thanks for your work on this!

From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor=3D40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf= .org>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 6:30 AM
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>; The IESG <iesg= @ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pce-sid-alg= o@ietf.org>; pce-chairs@ietf.org <pce-chairs@ietf.org>; pce@ietf.o= rg <pce@ietf.org>; dd@dhruvdhody.com <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Subject: Re: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-a= lgo-25: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mike,

Please find inline responses <S>.

Thanks a lot,
Samuel

From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor@cisco.com>
Date: Wednesday, 8 October 2025 at 20:34
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, The IESG <iesg@ietf= .org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@iet= f.org>, pce-chairs@ietf.org <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org &l= t;pce@ietf.org>, dd@dhruvdhody.com <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Subject: Re: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-2= 5: (with COMMENT)

Thanks a lot, Mike for comments provided.

I=92m working on those and I=92ll submit another version with changes inclu= ded (those are not included yet in version 26).

Regards,
Samuel

From: Mike Bishop via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Date: Monday, 6 October 2025 at 20:47
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo@iet= f.org>, pce-chairs@ietf.org <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org &l= t;pce@ietf.org>, dd@dhruvdhody.com <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, dd@dhruvdh= ody.com <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Subject: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25: (= with COMMENT)

Mike Bishop has entered the following ballo= t position for
draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25: 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:
h= ttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo/



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

Thanks for a well-sourced terminology section. Many of these terms are
abbreviations, and I would encourage you to include the expanded term here<= br> (with the abbreviation in parentheses) alongside the reference to the RFC t= hat
defines them. Also consider moving FAD and the RFC9050 reference to the top=
with the same format as the other RFCs where terms are imported. I also not= ed
the terms "headend router" and "RRO" used in the docume= nt without definitions
here.

<S>  Added RRO, moved FAD refere= nces.
For =93headend=94 - replaced it with PCC.
For expanding abbreviations - I can do that= , but we changed format of those based on comments to current format, see o= riginal version:
https://= www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-16.html

There appear to be too many words here:

415        *  If no SEBF (including= A flag defined in this document) is set, the
416           Length valu= e MUST match the requirements as defined in
417           Section 5.2= .1 of [RFC8664] applies.

I think this should be either "MUST follow the requirements defined&nb= sp;in Section
5.2.1 of [RFC8664]." or "If no SEBF (...) is set, the requirement= s in Section
5.2.1 of [RFC8664] apply.=94

<S> Updated to =93MUST follow the requirements de= fined"

Throughout the document, the following set= s of terms are used inconsistently.
Please pick one for each and use it throug= hout. - 'A flag', 'the A flag', 'the
A-flag', 'the A bit', '"A" flag'= - "Subobject Extension Block", "the Subobject
Extension Block" - "IEEE floatin= g-point format", "floating point format" "IEEE floating point" - "Flexible Algo= rithm", "Flex-algo", "Flex-Algorithm=94

<S> Should be more consistent now. Hopefully I updated all of them

In 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, normative requirements= are placed on future extensions.
That doesn't really affect implementers of= this specification, and they can't
be enforced on those future drafts. Instea= d, reframe this as guidance to those
future draft authors and/or as affirmative= statements about what can be done in
the future. If there is behavior required = now to enable those future extensions
(e.g. "if an SEBF is set that you don= 't understand, fail"), normative
requirements for those would be appropriat= e here.

<S> Ack, updated.

In Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, please includ= e the appropriate reference to the
definition of the floating point format (a= s you did in 4.5.1) or consider
making this a definition used in the Termi= nology section.

<S> Added to remaining 2 sections.

The reference to "Section 5.1, Sectio= n 5.1.2, and Section 5.2" is awkward,
especially as 5.1.2 is within 5.1. Conside= r making this "Sections 5.1 and 5.2"
or simply "defined in this document&q= uot; / "defined in this section". Are there
multiple extensions here, or a single exte= nsion that involves multiple new
elements?
<S> Updated to "= Sections 5.1 and 5.2=94. We are trying to make sure that for example new metric types introduced ar= e not covered.

In Section 5.2.2, should "The PCE mus= t optimize" be "The PCE MUST optimize" or
"The PCE optimizes=94?

<S> Updated to =93The PCE MUST optimize=

=3D=3D=3DNITS FOLLOW=3D=3D=3D
Section 3, "the mechanisms" =3D&= gt; "mechanisms"
Section 5.2, "different SR-Algorithm = constraint" =3D> "different SR-Algorithm
constraints" or "a different SR-= Algorithm constraint"; "use empty ERO" =3D> "use
an empty ERO"? Section 5.2.2, "i= ntroduced IANA registry" =3D> "created an IANA
registry" Section 5.3, "new metr= ic types defined in this document." =3D> "the new
metric types defined in this document.&quo= t; or simply "the metric types defined in
this document." Section 6, "to P= CEP extensions defined in this document" =3D> "to
the PCEP extensions defined in this docume= nt" and similar throughout the
section Section 6.2, "for PCEP peer&q= uot; =3D> "for the PCEP peer" Section 6.2,
several of these section references would = ideally be cross-references rather
than bare section numbers

<S> Updated for nits. 
For references - do you mean references to exis= ting RFCs (is there a risk that those will change?) or references for secti= ons inside of the document?



--_000_IA0PR11MB7792D3BE2675E8BE8F436A46D0E8AIA0PR11MB7792namp_--