[Pce] Re: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-multipath-27: (with COMMENT)

["Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for review and comments. Please check responses <S> inline.

Regards,
Samuel

From: Mike Bishop via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 16 June 2026 at 21:54
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-multipath-27: (with COMMENT)

Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-multipath-27: 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-multipath/



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

# IESG review of draft-ietf-pce-multipath-27

CC @MikeBishop

## Comments

### Section 3.5, paragraph 1
```
     headend.  In PCEP, the Composite Candidate Path still consists of
     PATH-ATTRIB objects, but ERO is replaced by Color of the recursively
     used SR Policy.
```
There's nothing about "color" in the Terminology section; this appears to be a
term used in several other PCE RFCs. Either here or in 1.2, please point to
the source of the term.

<S> As part of other comments, adding "SR policy" into definition with explanation also that it is identified by tuple of headend, color and endpoint.
Hopefully that satisfies your comment above as well.

### Section 7, paragraph 1

It would be nice to include links to the relevant registries.

<S> Adding those to registries which are already created.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool) so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4.1.1, paragraph 18
```


te equal or unequal load-balancing amongst the set of multipaths. In this ca
                                   ^^^^^^^
```
Do not mix variants of the same word ("amongst" and "among") within a single
text.

<S> I’ll fix those to “among”.