[Pce] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25: Discuss

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-25
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. Most of it was beyond my
technical knowledge of PCE/SR though.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for
my own education).

Special thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the shepherd's write-up including the WG
consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## DISCUSS (blocking)

As noted in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/,
a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I
really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be
convinced otherwise.

### Section 4.2.1

Trivial to fix: `Future extensions SHOULD first re-use the Reserved portion` is
ambiguous as there is no Reserved field in the "block" only "Unassigned".
Suggest using the term "reserved" rather than "unassigned" and being consistent.


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


## COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2

Strongly suggest to add the position of the S flag rather than waiting to reach
the IANA considerations section.

### Section 4.2.1

Please add an informative URI reference to the IANA registry.

### Sections 6.2 and 6.4

When can the "SHOULD" be bypassed ? or what are the consequences of doing so.

### Update references

As indicated by idnits, several I-Ds are now RFC (e.g., RFC 9843) even before
the submission date of this I-D, so refresh these references.