Hi Murray ,
Thank you very much for your comments.
My explanations/answers are inline below with prefix [HC].
The comments have been addressed in version 21 of the document uploaded..
Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 2:11 AM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Adrian Farrel
<[email protected]>
Subject: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-19: (with COMMENT)
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://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.html&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Ccc7fa71c5bbd435cec2d08d8223c89c1%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637296990716411702&sdata=cong4fV26Uh90MTTrnkk8yzl2mdn7R5Y%2BiLMX7mSjoQ%3D&reserved=0
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling%2F&data=02%7C01%7Chuaimo.chen%40futurewei.com%7Ccc7fa71c5bbd435cec2d08d8223c89c1%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637296990716411702&sdata=axjllnikE02TCDbuYOMt7KJqgE%2FMIxt5n2SQVAEJx%2Bg%3D&reserved=0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2.1:
* "Passive Stateful PCE" is listed in the imported terminology, but not used
elsewhere in the document.
[HC]: We have removed it.
Sections 5.2.1 & 5.2.2:
* I had the same questions Erik did about the R-bit.
[HC]: Addressed in version 20. We have added some more details.
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?
[HC]: Yes.
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.
[HC]: We have described the fields explicitly.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
