Hi Roman,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
They should have been addressed in version 25 uploaded. My explanations are
inline below with [HC].
Best Regards,
Huaimo
________________________________
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 9:53 PM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Adrian Farrel
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-19: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw 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%7Cb3c098edc64241930bc908d823aad19c%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637298563864999722&sdata=TgYuVMObrX4HA70JXaAzt8VgCPWJrNMu4fl0ffljQYA%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%7Cb3c098edc64241930bc908d823aad19c%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637298563864999722&sdata=IGKYNDm8pT9QouQn5Oddq7ePJkLTQliYPcIWLIc53oE%3D&reserved=0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I concur with Alvaro Retana’s point (2) and (3), that since time
synchronization is key to functionality clarified normative guidance is needed.
[HC]: We have addressed them.
I support Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS position.
** Section 2.1. Thank you for providing a mapping of terms to references.
** Consider using normative language in the following places:
-- Section 5.2.1. Per “The Start-Time indicates a time at or before which the
schedule LSP must be set up”, should this be a normative MUST?
[HC]: We have changed it to a normative MUST.
-- Section 8. Per “Thus, such deployment should employ suitable PCEP security
mechanisms …”, why not a normative SHOULD?
[HC]: We have changed it to SHOULD (in version 25).
** Editorial Nits:
-- Section 1. Typo. s/can not/cannot/
[HC]: We have changed it to "cannot" (in version 25)
-- Section 5.2.1. Typo. s/an non zero/a non zero/g
[HC]: We have changed it to "a non zero" (in version 25)
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
