Hi PCEers I did not see any reply on my previous comments I repost them with separate threads, as the initial one were big
1. Section 3.1 : Why not reuse the draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions PROTECTION_ATTRIBUTE ? the local protection can be seen as the seg. Flags from RFC4873 , this would also cover the Section 4.1 2. Section 4.1 : wrong figure title 3. Section 4.1 : the S flag semantic would collide with draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions PROTECTION_ATTRIBUTE object S bit,, 4. Section 4.3 : does this indicate for a given LSP what is the bypass LSP node, is this expecting one bypass tunnel ? why not associated the tunnels (one could make use of RFC4872 association or create a list of associated LSP-ID, possibly with role/flags??) 5. Section 4.4 : One another more generic possibility would be to have an association list with role or making use of the association object, Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Cyril Margaria Nokia Siemens Networks Optical GmbH St.Martin-Str. 76 D-81541 München Germany mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49-89-5159-16934 Fax: +49-89-5159-44-16934 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nokia Siemens Networks Optical GmbH Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Gero Neumeier, Dr. Rolf Nauerz Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 197143 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
