Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: 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-lsp-setup-type/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll let you folks work with Benjamin on this, but I echo his concern about the level of specification covering sub-TLVs (Spencer's summary: "not much specification"). As a related comment, I note that not defining any sub-TLVs in this document prevents the authors from giving any examples of what sub-TLVs might be appropriate, which would have been helpful for me in both the Abstract and Introduction. (I usually prefer clues about whether the reader should be reading a specification or not. It would be easier for me to know whether this document is relevant to me, if I knew what kinds of sub-TLVs were envisioned, even if only a couple of examples were provided. But do the right thing, of course) _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
