Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-association-group-09: 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-association-group/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) s/before hand/beforehand/g (2) §5: "Start-Assoc-ID...The values 0 and 0xffff MUST NOT be used." What should the receiver do if they are? (3) §5: "Range...it MUST be such that (Start-Assoc-ID + Range) do not cross the association identifier range of 0xffff." What should the receiver do if it does? (4) s/is OPTIONAL and MAY/MAY/g OPTIONAL = MAY (5) §9.2: "An implementation SHOULD allow...Further implementation SHOULD allow... To serve this purpose, the PCEP YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] includes association groups." If I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang is the mechanism that addresses these Normative statements, then it should be a Normative reference. I think that it is not necessary to point at I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang in this document. (6) RFC8126 should be a Normative reference. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
