Oops, I did overlook those two comments. Must be because of identical 7 & 9; making me thing as I was at 9 while i was working on 7. Apologies, will post an update SOON.
Thanks! Dhruv On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 6:27 PM Andrew G. Malis <[email protected]> wrote: > Dhruv, > > That was quick! :-) All looks good except you missed two comments: > > 8. Section 6.5, first paragraph: In the second line, replace the comma > with a period and capitalize the following "this". > > 9. Section 6.5, last paragraph: A right ")" is missing at the end of the > paragraph. > > Thanks, > Andy > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:15 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Andy, >> >> >> >> Thanks for your review. Your comments are incorporated in the -11 >> version. >> >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp/ >> >> >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-11 >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Dhruv >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dhruv Dhody >> >> Lead Architect >> >> Network Business Line >> >> Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. >> >> Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield >> >> Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560066 >> >> Tel: + 91-80-49160700 Ext 71583 II Email: [email protected] >> >> [image: Huawei-small] >> >> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from >> HUAWEI, which >> is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. >> Any use of the >> information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, >> total or partial >> disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the >> intended >> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please >> notify the sender by >> phone or email immediately and delete it! >> >> >> >> *From:* Pce [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew G. Malis >> *Sent:* 19 February 2019 02:34 >> *To:* <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> *Subject:* [Pce] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-10.txt >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. >> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related >> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes >> on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to >> the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please >> see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir >> >> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it >> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last >> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through >> discussion or by updating the draft. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-10.txt >> Reviewer: Andy Malis >> Review Date: 18 February 2019 >> IETF LC End Date: N/A (in preparation for IETF LC) >> Intended Status: Standards Track >> >> Summary: >> >> This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that >> should be considered prior to publication. >> >> Comments: >> >> It was very easy to follow the draft. Excellent work by all involved. >> >> Major issues: >> >> No major issues found. >> >> Minor Issues: >> >> No minor issues found. >> >> Nits: >> >> 1. Section 3..1, second paragraph: >> >> Replace: >> For P2MP this is an added advantage, where the size of message is much >> larger. >> >> With: >> For P2MP, where the size of message is much larger, this is an added >> advantage. >> >> 2. Section 5.1, fifth paragraph: >> >> Replace: >> Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (PCInitiate): is a PCEP >> >> With: >> Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (PCInitiate): PCInitiate is a PCEP >> >> 3. Section 5.2, first paragraph: >> >> Replace: >> PCEP speakers advertise Stateful capability via STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY >> TLV in open message. >> >> With: >> PCEP speakers advertise Stateful capability via the >> STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object. >> >> 4. Section 5.2, third paragraph (N Flag): In two places, replace >> "changes" with "change". >> >> 5.. Section 5.3, first paragraph: Expand "LSR" (Label Switching Router) >> on first use. It's not on the RFC Editor's list of well-known acronyms. >> >> 6. Section 5.3, second paragraph: Expand "PCED" (PCE Discovery TLV) on >> first use. >> >> 7. Section 6.2, last paragraph: A right ")" is missing at the end of the >> paragraph. >> >> 8. Section 6.5, first paragraph: In the second line, replace the comma >> with a period and capitalize the following "this". >> >> 9. Section 6.5, last paragraph: A right ")" is missing at the end of the >> paragraph. >> >> 10. Section 8, second paragraph: Add the word "The" to the start of the >> paragraph. >> >> 11. Section 11.2, first paragraph. Change "and a registry was created" to >> "and the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field subregistry was created" >> >> 12. Section 11.3, first paragraph: Change "and a registry was created" to >> "and the LSP Object Flag Field subregistry was created" >> >> Regards, >> Andy >> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
