Hi, Mirja,
Thank you very much for your review and comments.
We have addressed Alvaro's comments by removing all the dependencies to
protocol extensions drafts (see latest draft at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-08). As for your
additional comment about Section 4, we think it more appropriate in this draft,
so we would like to keep it here. However, we have made the following two
changes related to this section:
1) moving it after the scenario section since the latter is more ;
2) removing any reference to protocol-spec draft and make the description in a
protocol-neutral manner.
Are you ok with these changes?
Cheers,
Xian
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[email protected]]
发送时间: 2016年10月27日 1:06
收件人: The IESG
抄送: [email protected]; Jonathan Hardwick;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
主题: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-07: (with
COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-07: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Alvaro's comment. To me one important question here is if section
4 (Deployment Considerations) should be moved back into the stateful pce spec?!
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
