Hi Spencer

Thanks for your comments.  Please see [Jon] below.


-----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; 
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 

  This document does not define any sub-TLVs.
  This document does not define any sub-TLVs; an example can be found in 

Pce mailing list

Reply via email to