H Jonathan, Thanks a lot for your review, please see inline.
On 18 July 2014 10:22, Jonathan Hardwick <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > Agree > == 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. > > > Agree > == 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" > > > Agree > == 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..." > > > Agree > == Section 2.5.1 == > List of 5 items on page 12. Should the LABEL-REQUEST TLV also be in this > list? > > > This is correct, the TLV will be added to the 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. > > Agree > Change > The procedure associated with this subobject is as follow > to > The procedure associated with this subobject is as follows. > > Agree > 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 > > Agree > 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. > > > Agree > == 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. > > This is correct > 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. > > > Agree > == 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 > > I agree, > == Section 5.5 == > "Value=q0" should be "Value=10" > > > Agree > > > -----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
