Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: 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-hierarchy-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, thanks for this Document. I have a couple of comments/suggestions: 3.2.1 If the PCE understands the H-PCE path computation request but did not advertise its H-PCE capability, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=TBD8 ("H-PCE error") and Error-Value=1 ("Parent PCE Capability not advertised"). I believe the description of the error is incorrect and should be: "H-PCE Capability not advertised" 3.6. SVEC Object o O (Domain diverse) bit - TBD14 You call it the O bit here but not in the IANA registry. I guess the two should be consistent. In IANA section: s/H-PCE-FLAGS/H-PCE-FLAG/ (twice) s/assign three new/assign four new/ typos s/suitible /suitable/ s/Aditionally/Additionally/ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
