Thanks Adrian for your comments. We will address them and send out a new rev.
Also, regarding the P-bit, yes we will mandate that P-bit is set in the PCEReq. As such, I bit is ignored for the CLASSTYPE object. Regards, Siva -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:26 AM To: Siva Sivabalan (msiva); Jon Parker (jdparker); Sami Boutros (sboutros); Kenji Kumaki Cc: [email protected] Subject: Looking at the PCEP DSTE I-D Hi, Thanks for working on this I-D. I have just been looking at it and there a couple of process issues I think you need to clean up... === Watch out! Your I-D is about to expire === Insert a blank line between document title and filename === Please run idnits (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) I see 1 error and 8 warnings === Indentation and layout. I think you are victims of Microsoft Word. You need to leftshift the whole document by five spaces. It would be nice to have a blank line at the top of each page. === Repetition of common object header. You don't need to (i.e. you shouldn't ;-) reproduce text from [PCEP] because that creates a potential conflict of definitions. === Use of P and I bits. If the P bit is set, the Classtype object must be taken into account. If clear it can be ignored. The I bit requests the inclusion of object in the response if it was ignored. But you have: Path computation reply message MUST NOT include a CLASSTYPE object. Does that mean that you intend to mandate that the P bit is set in the object header on the request? === Codepoint allocations You have some conflicts with other I-Ds. I have included your I-Ds in the codepoint registry at http://www.olddog.co.uk/pcep-codepoints.txt Search for [DSTE] and update your I-D accordingly. === IANA section You mustn't expect the folk at IANA to trawl through the draft or to know PCEP. So you need to have more detailed IANA section. For example... IANA maintains a registry of parameters for PCEP. This contains a sub-registry for PCEP objects. IANA is requested to make a new allocation from this registry as follows: Object Name Reference Class 22 CLASSTYPE [This.I-D] Object-Type 1: Class Type [This.I-D] You need to make a similar request for the new error type and values. === Manageability considerations This section is not mandatory, but the WG is trying to always consider manageability when developing protocol extensions. My guess is that there are not many requirements here, but certainly some configurable items. === Typos s/Client(PCC)/Client (PCC)/ s/for which path is to be/for which the path is to be/ s/does not support CLASSTYPE object/does not support the CLASSTYPE object/ s/Author's Addresses/Authors' Addresses/ Several times you have "the draft [PCEP-ID]". You should change this to "[PCEP-ID]" Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
