Hi Alissa, Thanks for the review, All the comments were addressed in the last version itself.
Sections 5.4.1 and 5.5 address your comments. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12#section-5.4.1 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12#section-5.5 Regards, Mahendra On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:09 PM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12: Discuss > > 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-diversity/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A couple of the points from the Gen-ART review warrant discussion I think > (quoting directly from the review): > > (1) 'The relationship of this mechanism with SVEC seems to be important but > is not clearly stated. The relevant sections of the text seem to be: > section 4 para 2, section 5.3, and section 5.4 from "[RFC5440] uses > SVEC diversity flag" on. I think that they need to be pulled into one > section. Then it will be possible to have a good description of the > interaction with SVEC.' > > (2) 'The path computation effects of the P bit are described in the "P" > item in section 5.2 and section 5.5. But the descriptions are > unclear, or perhaps they presume that there are only two LSPs in the > group. I think the intended meaning is that all of the LSPs in the > group with P=1 are computed first, and then with those LSPs fixed, the > LSPs in the group with P=0 are computed. This will cause > shortest-path constraints (and other objective functions) to be > optimized on the P=1 LSPs, and those paths will not be de-optimized by > competition from the other paths. This should probably be pulled out > of the description of the "P" in its TLV and put into a separate > paragraph.' > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Please respond to the remainder of the Gen-ART review. > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
