[Pce] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-22
Xiao Min via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 24 March 2025 02:44 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from [10.244.8.216] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D021C115AB48; Sun, 23 Mar 2025 19:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Xiao Min via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.37.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <174278425263.1440797.7361899253193231517@dt-datatracker-5b9b68c5b6-zxk6z>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 19:44:12 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: OTNQYWUK7OOYM4BADLP3PXHHUY5W33E3
X-Message-ID-Hash: OTNQYWUK7OOYM4BADLP3PXHHUY5W33E3
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
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-segment-routing-policy-cp.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: Xiao Min <xiao.min2@zte.com.cn>
Subject: [Pce] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-22
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/p0p8bu0qKY6rEyhd8YhTaacIyyk>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pce-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pce-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pce-leave@ietf.org>
Reviewer: Xiao Min Review result: Ready Summary: I have been asked to review this draft on behalf of the OPS directorate. I think this document is READY. Also, I have a few editorial comments for the authors to consider. Section 1 & 3, it appears "PCEP LSP" or "PCEP LSPs" is not used in other PCE documents, so suggest to do s/PCEP LSP/LSP and s/PCEP LSPs/LSPs. Section 2, s/candidate paths belonging to the SR Policy/candidate paths belonging to the same SR Policy. Section 5.2, Figure 7, how long is the "Priority" field? 8 bits or 9 bits? I believe it's 8 bits. Section 5.3, Figure 8, how long is the "ENLP" field? I believe it's 8 bits. In Section 3.2 of RFC 8697 it says "PCEP extensions that define a new Association Type should clarify the relationship between the SVEC object and the Association Type, if any", so some clarification text may be added.
- [Pce] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-se… Xiao Min via Datatracker
- [Pce] Re: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-pc… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- [Pce] Re: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-pc… xiao.min2
- [Pce] Re: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-pc… Samuel Sidor (ssidor)