Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-02

[Ben Niven-Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,

> On 2 Jul 2017, at 17:08, Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Thanks for your review. Please see inline.
> 
> On Sunday 02 July 2017 05:45 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
>> 3) Section 5 says “PCEP implementations SHOULD consider the additional security
>> provided by Transport Layer Security (TLS) [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps].”
>> 
>> Use of SHOULD says to me you expect the majority of implementations to
>> implement I-D.ietf-pce-pceps. So should the reference to I-D.ietf-pce-pceps be
>> normative?
> 
> [Dhruv]:Hmm, you may be right.
> It just that other documents have put this down as Informative usually. PCEPS is also in publication process, so normative reference will most likely not block progress. I am not sure if we should deviate in this document. Thoughts?

I don’t have a strong opinion, I point it out as something that struck me as a possible oversight. If the authors & ADs are happy for it to be an informative reference, that’s fine with me.

>> 4) Section 6.5 - PCEP Objects. Should you specify the meaning of Object-Types
>> 0, 1 & 2 for the END-POINTS object, like you do for the other objects in this
>> section?
> 
> [Dhruv]: END-POINTS is an existing object defined in RFC5440. This document defines new object-types for the END-POINTS object. Thus I don't think there is a reason to mention 0,1 & 2.

Fair enough.

Ben