[Pce] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10: 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-stateful-path-protection/



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

Thank you for the work put into this document. I am trusting the routing AD for
their deep understanding of this document and their approval.

Nevertheless, I have 2 COMMENTs which are mere questions of mine.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3.2 --
C.1) Any reason to have a field named "unassigned flags" rather than
"reserved"? After all, those bits could be used later for something different
than flags. Also applicable to section 6.2.

C.2) is there any reason the "P", "S" and "PT" are described right to left ?