Hi Authors, In preparation for the upcoming WG adoption call, I did a quick review of your I-D to tidy things up. At this stage we need to make sure that I-D is in good enough state as a base of further work by the WG if adopted.
(1) 6 authors on the front page, better to handle this now itself, rather than much later in the process. (2) Add Implementation Status as per the WG policy. I assume there are implementations of this work? (3) Start work on the 'Manageability Considerations' section. Currently it is marked TBD. (4) This document includes details about reporting BSID for a path. What happens when PCE creates a SR path (SR-ERO) that includes a BSID. This detail is currently missing, we need to a clarity on how to encode a BSID in SR-ERO and the best place is this document. My guess would be to say no NAI in case of BSID in SR-ERO and confirm how the flags should be set for both SR-MPLS and SRv6. (5) Add reference to Section 6.4 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] for non-SR use of BSID. (6) Why use 'label/SID' in this I-D? Please check in spring what would be the best practice can it just be SID? (7) Security Consideration is bit week. You have a way for PCE to assign BSID and this needs to be analysed for potential exploitation. (8) Update Section 6.1.1 to include SRv6 (9) Remove this sentence from section 1 - "However, use of this TLV for carrying non-MPLS binding SID will be described in separate document(s)."; as you support SRv6. Similarly, reword section 3, 2nd paragraph. Note that these are non-blocking comments for WG adoption but it would be great, if the authors publish a revision handling these. Thanks! Dhruv _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
