Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-19: 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-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2.1: * "Passive Stateful PCE" is listed in the imported terminology, but not used elsewhere in the document. Sections 5.2.1 & 5.2.2: * I had the same questions Erik did about the R-bit. Section 7: The text here is unchanged since version -09 of this document, which recorded no known implementations, and was posted almost a year ago. Is that still the case now? Section 10.1.1: This section defines a new registry but doesn't explicitly describe the fields of that registry like Section 10.1.2 does. It's nice to be explicit about these things, in my opinion. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
