Hi, No objections to this document from me, and thanks to the author for the diligence with which he checked the impact of this change. We can't see from the outside whether enough of the "real implementers" responded, but they had their chance and this last call is their last chance :-)
--- I think it would be helpful if the "update" to RFC 5440 was more anchored into that document. So... The update is to section 7.12, yes? The text in the last paragraph of your section 2 is to be considered part of the spec, yes? The text is intended to replace the last line of 5440/7.12 that currently says The L bit of such sub-object has no meaning within an IRO. I also think there is a bit of an over-use of "MUST" in... The content of an IRO object MUST be an ordered list of subobjects representing a series of abstract nodes. Using "is" would be more appropriate. You could go "MUST be interpreted as", but that also sounds excessive use of language. --- In the Introduction you say During discussion of [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence] it was proposed to have a new IRO type with ordered nature, as well as handling of Loose bit (L bit). This is completely true and indisputable. But appearing like this it raises more questions than it answers. Either delete the paragraph or add some resolution such as "however, with the update to RFC 5440 described in this document, no new IRO type is needed." --- Section 2 has A survey of the existing and planned implementations was conducted in order to discover the current state of affairs amongst implementations. [I-D.dhody-pce-iro-survey] describe the questionnaire, results and presents some conclusions and proposed action items. More details in Appendix A. Having read App A I don't think it adds any more details to what is in the Intro and in this paragraph. You have the reference to the survey i-D (which will stay in the archives for ever), so I suggest to delete the appendix and the pointer to it. --- It looks to me that RFC 3209 is a normative reference since I must look there to find out how to interpret the L bit. Cheers, Adrian > This message initiates a 2-week WG last call on > draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-01. Please send your comments to the PCE > mailing list by Tuesday May 19. > > Thanks, > > JP & Julien _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
