Hi Suresh, Thanks for the review, all the comments are addressed in new version.
New version: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-13 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-13 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-13 Regards, Mahendra On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 8:59 AM Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Suresh Krishnan 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > * Section 5.3: > Given the fairly relaxed handling of multiple OF-codes ("the receiver > MUST > consider the first OF-code only and ignore others if included") I think > the > error handling as specified in > > "the OF-code inside the OF Object MUST include one of the disjoint OFs > defined > in this document. If this condition is not met, the PCEP speaker MUST..." > > needs to be tightened a bit since all the OF-codes but the first are > ignored > for processing but still considered for error handling. Suggest something > like > this > > OLD: > the OF-code inside the OF Object MUST include one of the disjoint OFs > defined > in this document. > > NEW: > the first OF-code inside the OF Object MUST be one of the disjoint OFs > defined > in this document. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Looks like the placeholder TBD8 is being used for two totally different > purposes (a new bit in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV and the Error-value for > DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV missing) and this is confusing. Please > deconflict. > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
