[Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 04 February 2019 17:04 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E720130E86; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 09:04:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext@ietf.org, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, pce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.91.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154929984644.28639.4945458965342250832.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 09:04:06 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/uZ8NRSbyRjzpyVj8zcRqEJ_xCJc>
Subject: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 17:04:07 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: 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-wson-rwa-ext/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add: 1) sec 4.3: "an Error-value (Error-value=3) MUST be defined so that the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object. See Section 5.1 for the details." This doesn't really make sense as normative "MUST"; I propose to change to lower case "must". 2) sec 4.3: "This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify multiple restrictions." How do you know how much restrictions will be there? Based on a length field in the base protocol? Please clarify in the draft! 3) sec 4.3.2: "Length (16 bits): It is the length in bytes of the entire label set field." What is meant by "label set field" here? Please clarify in the draft or align wording accordingly. 4) Error value 3 is missing in sec 8.8!
- [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-iet… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft… Leeyoung