Hi Spencer Thanks for your comments. Please see [Jon] below.
Cheers Jon -----Original Message----- From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com] Sent: 03 April 2018 03:23 To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org; Julien Meuric <julien.meu...@orange.com>; pce-cha...@ietf.org; julien.meu...@orange.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with 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) [Jon] I have proposed an update to Benjamin. The draft does not need any sub-TLVs, hence there are no examples, which has been a frequent pattern in PCE RFCs since the working group got started! Having said that, we could immediately point to the first real example of a PST sub-TLV by providing an informative reference to draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing. I don't see a problem doing this as the documents were always intended to be published together. How about OLD This document does not define any sub-TLVs. NEW This document does not define any sub-TLVs; an example can be found in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]. END _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce