Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12: 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-inter-layer-ext/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Minor comments: 1) I guess the I flag in the INTER-LAYER Object is actually not needed as the present of the INTER-LAYER Object already indicates that inter-layer information is requested, but that is not an issue. 2) Is the INTER-LAYER Object Flags registry really needed, given the limited amount of flag space??? 3) Security Consideration: "Inter-layer traffic engineering with PCE may raise new security issues when PCE-PCE communication is done between different layer networks for inter-layer path computation." This text is not very helpful as this section is meant to be used to document these new issues. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
