Hi Mirja Many thanks for these comments. I'm picking up this thread and replying as PCE working group chair, as the authors are unavailable. I am very sorry for the delay.
Please see my proposed resolutions inline below, marked with "Jon>" Best regards Jon <snip> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) I'm wondering why this spec is not part of I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce as it is also not published yet...? Jon> It has been published now. The main reasons were - it took longer for PCE-initiated LSPs to be accepted into the PCE WG, and the authors did not want to hold up work on the base draft - I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce was a self-contained set of function and it was envisioned that there was a class of device that would not implement the LSP initiation extensions - I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce was already fairly long and complex, and merging them would have been an editing / reviewing headache. 2) I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations should also be a normative references, given a flag is used in section 4.1 and a TLV is used in section 5.3.2 that are defined in that draft. Jon> Good catch! Will fix it. 3) sec 5.4: "A PLSP-ID of zero removes all LSPs that were initiated by the PCE." and "If the PLSP-ID specified in the PCInitiate message was not created by a PCE.." -> This means that the PCC must remember which LSP was created by which PCE at instantiation time. This could be stated more explicitly. Jon> I think the first sentence ought to say "A PLSP-ID of zero removes all LSPs that are delegated to the PCE." I will fix the sentence. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
