Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20

Hi, Quan:

Thanks for your support and suggestions!

I have already updated the reference to RFC9050 as your suggestion.

Regarding to the recommendation of second point, if it will not arise again the obscure of its meaning, keeping it simple will be better.

If there is no more argument for this simplification, we will update document later accordingly.

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

> On May 31, 2023, at 11:15, xiong.quan@zte.com.cn wrote:
> 
> Dear Chairs and WG,
> 
> I have read the new version and I support the WGLC.
> Some editorial suggestions are as following shown.
> In section 5.1, "Where:  <cci-list> is as per   [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller]." It may update to RFC9050.
> In section 5.1, "Further only one  and one kind of BPI, EPR, or PPA object MUST be present." It is a little confused. Maybe that can be changed to "One BPI, EPR, or PPA object MUST be present and others should be ignored."
> 
> Best Regards,
> Quan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <<[Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20
> <<Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> Tue, 16 May 2023 22:16 UTCShow header
> Hi WG, This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-20 [1]. Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. The WG LC will end on Wednesday 31st May 2023. We will also notify the IDR WG about this WGLC. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption and help us unclog our queues :) Thanks, Dhruv & Julien [1]https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce