Alvaro Retana 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 share Benjamin's concerns about the clarity of this document, and support his DISCUSS. I have added some related comments below (not overlapping with his, of Mirja's). (1) §4.2 (Wavelength Selection TLV): "The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689]." It should be made clear that this document is requesting a new TLV-type code to be assigned (§8.2) for this TLV. IOW, rfc7689 just describes the value part of the TLV... (2) §4.3: s/MUST be able to specify a restriction/MUST specify a restriction I assume you really want the restriction signaled, and not just the ability to do it... (3) §4.3: "the PCE MUST have mechanisms to know the tunability restrictions" How can this be Normatively enforced? It seems to be that the MUST is out of place. s/MUST/must (4) §4.3: "the PCC MUST be able to apply additional constraints" This sounds like a requirement, which is immediately satisfied by the definition of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV...so I think the MUST is out of place. s/MUST/must (5) §4.3.2: s/wavelength restriction TLV/Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV (6) I think that these references should be Normative: rfc5440, rfc8253. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
