I've reviewed this document for the WG last call.
I think this document is in good shape. I only found nits - see below.
Best regards
Jon
== Section 1.3 ==
Change
A new object type are introduced for the BANDWIDTH object
to
Two new object types are introduced for the BANDWIDTH object
== Section 2.2 ==
Final paragraph second sentence - I think you should change this to "Otherwise,
the PCE MAY use..." to make it clear that the second sentence is not intended
to contradict the first sentence.
== Section 2.3 ==
Page 9, directly under Traffic Spec field encoding table
- there is a stray comma that should be deleted
- change "is MUST specify..." to "it MUST specify..."
- change "As specified i [RFC5440]" to "As specified in [RFC5440]"
- change "BANDWIDTH object of with object type 1" to "BANDWIDTH object of
object type 1"
== Section 2.4 ==
Page 11, directly under Traffic Spec field encoding table
- there is a stray full stop (period) that should be deleted
- change "is MUST specify..." to "it MUST specify..."
== Section 2.5.1 ==
List of 5 items on page 12. Should the LABEL-REQUEST TLV also be in this list?
== Section 2.6 ==
Change
IP address subobject MUST be a link subobject.
to
If an IP address subobject is used, then the IP address given MUST be
associated with a link.
Change
The procedure associated with this subobject is as follow
to
The procedure associated with this subobject is as follows.
Change
MUST allocate one label of from within the set of label values
to
MUST allocate one label from within the set of label values
Change
If the PCE does not assign labels a response with a
NO-PATH and a NO-PATH-VECTOR-TLV with the bit .'No label resource in
range' set.
to
If the PCE does not assign labels then it sends a response with a
NO-PATH object, containing a NO-PATH-VECTOR-TLV with the bit 'No label
resource in
range' set.
== Section 2.7 ==
Is your intention that the Label Subobject can also be used in the EXRS (RFC
5521 section 2.2?) I think it is worth adding a sentence saying so.
For consistency with section 2.6 (and because I think the text in 2.6 is
clearer) I think you should change this:
XRO Label subobjects MUST follow the numbered or unnumbered interface
subobjects to which they refer. Each subobject represent one label,
several XRO Labels subobject MAY be present for each link.
to this:
The Label subobject MUST follow a subobject identifying a link,
currently an IP address subobject (Type 1 or 2) or an interface id
(type 4) subobject. If an IP address subobject is used, then the
IP address given MUST be associated with a link. More than one
label suboject MAY follow each link subobject.
== Section 5.1 ==
The formatting used in this section is not consistent. Use consistent
indentation & column width.
For BANDWIDTH object I think you mean "5-15: Unassigned"
For ENDPOINTS the reference should be to 2.5, not 2.3
== Section 5.5 ==
"Value=q0" should be "Value=10"
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
Sent: 04 July 2014 17:05
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-09
Dear WG,
Now that you all have some time dedicated to I-Ds, please consider this
as part of your review list.
This message ignites the WG LC on
draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-09. Comments should be sent to the
PCE mailing list by Friday July 18, 11:59 PM, HST.
Regards,
JP & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
