Thanks David!
Comments:
I am concerned about Section 6.2's recommendation for MIB
extension work. Is the work to extend the MIB underway? How
important is that MIB extension to manageability (hence
usability in practice) of this protocol?
No, the work on MIB extensions has not been started.
It is not uncommon for MIB work to lag behind the protocol work.
I don't think any of the MIB work is critical to the usability of this
protocol.
The MIB work is desirable because:
- the IESG asks for it
- it helps to develop the maturity of the protocol
The following items are all minor, but should be dealt with:
Yes.
p.5, last paragraph, 3rd line:
"wheres this ID" --> "whereas this ID"
p.6, 3rd line of PCECP definition:
"requests a PCC" --> "requests from a PCC"
p.8, 1st new paragraph, 4th line
"in which to compute" --> "that computes"
Its on page 9.
Section 5.3 defines two new bits in the RP object. The
bit numbers should be included in this section in addition to
including them in the IANA Considerations section.
Yeah. Might be helpful.
Section 5.5: Please explain what the "Optional TLV(s)" are
in Figure 3.
This is a good point...
Authors: I presume you have put this here for extensibility, but have
defined no TLVs at this stage.
You need to:
- Note that no TLVs are defined in this document. Use some
text like that in Section 7.3 of RFC 5440
- State that the TLV format and processing is consistent with
Section 7.1 of RFC 5440
- State that any TLVs will be allocated from the "PCEP TLV
Type Indicators" registry
I think that means you need to do a quick update, please.
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
