Hi, Cyril, Thank you for the quick reply. For three items requiring my further response, please see inline, marked with [Xian2]:
Regards, Xian From: Cyril Margaria [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 2014年7月23日 20:48 To: Zhangxian (Xian) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-09 Hi, Thanks a lot for your comments, please see inline On 23 July 2014 05:17, Zhangxian (Xian) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have also reviewed this draft (A bit late though) and find no major issues with it. On top of Jon's suggestions, pls find mine below. If these cannot be captured together with WG LC, please consider them during the next process. Regards, Xian (snip) == Section 2.1.1 == OLD: Those documents define bit 0 of the PCED TLV for Path computation with GMPLS link constraints. Comment: Since it has been defined already and not clear (as least to me) in current texts, I would suggest to reword as following: NEW: Those documents has defined bit 0 in PCE-CAP-FLAGS Sub-TLV of PCED TLV as “Path computation with GMPLS link constraints”. Agree, "have defined" maybe? [Xian2]: you are right, ☺. (snip) == Section 2.8 == OLD: This object is introduced to fulfill requirement 7 of [RFC7025] section 4.1 and requirement 3 of [RFC7025] section 4.2. This object contains the the value of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and may be used as a policy input. NEW: This object is introduced to fulfill requirement 7 of [RFC7025] Section 3.1 and requirement 3 of [RFC7025] Section 3.2. This object contains the value of the PROTECTION object defined by [RFC4872] and may be used as a policy input. Agree Comment: contains the value or contains the information? I think contains the information would be more generic, so I will put "contains the information", is it OK? [Xian2]: Looks good. (snip) s/Accepted endpoint type in END-POINTS object type Generalized Endpoint and allowed TLVs/Accepted endpoint type in Generalized Endpoint object type and allowed TLVs I would like to keep the END-POINTS object, what about "Accepted endpoint type in object END-POINTS with object type Generalized Endpoint and allowed TLVs" [Xian2]: Sure. But how about "Accepted endpoint type and allowed TLVs in object END-POINTS with object type Generalized Endpoint"? NO strong opinion, take whichever you prefer. (snip)
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
