[Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-association-group/



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

(1) s/before hand/beforehand/g

(2) §5: "Start-Assoc-ID...The values 0 and 0xffff MUST NOT be used."  What
should the receiver do if they are?

(3) §5: "Range...it MUST be such that (Start-Assoc-ID + Range) do not cross the
association identifier range of 0xffff."  What should the receiver do if it
does?

(4) s/is OPTIONAL and MAY/MAY/g   OPTIONAL = MAY

(5) §9.2: "An implementation SHOULD allow...Further implementation SHOULD
allow... To serve this purpose, the PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
includes association groups."  If I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang is the mechanism that
addresses these Normative statements, then it should be a Normative reference. 
I think that it is not necessary to point at I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang in this
document.

(6) RFC8126 should be a Normative reference.