Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: 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-wson-rwa-ext/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add: 1) sec 4.3: "an Error-value (Error-value=3) MUST be defined so that the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object. See Section 5.1 for the details." This doesn't really make sense as normative "MUST"; I propose to change to lower case "must". 2) sec 4.3: "This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify multiple restrictions." How do you know how much restrictions will be there? Based on a length field in the base protocol? Please clarify in the draft! 3) sec 4.3.2: "Length (16 bits): It is the length in bytes of the entire label set field." What is meant by "label set field" here? Please clarify in the draft or align wording accordingly. 4) Error value 3 is missing in sec 8.8! _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
