Hi authors,
Thanks a lot for your continue work on this draft. This draft is very useful and helpful to enable IFIT method automatically along with the initiation of LSP, especially for SR and IPv6. As you have mentioned in your draft, I also have proposed another companion document draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit-03 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-qin-idr-sr-policy-ifit/ , which extend BGP to distribute SR policies with IFIT information for automatically activating and running IFIT methods. Please let me know your questions and comments for this draft. After reading your draft, I have following questions and comments. Please feel free to let me know your thought. First, in section 3, regarding Flag field, do you see necessary to encode different flags respectively for Alternate Marking method and IOAM method? Second, in section 5, this document only presents the example of operation in case of the PCE initiated SR Policy. Does the draft cover the case of PCC Initiated SR Policy? Third, We need to acknowledge that IFIT attributes can be exploited as any other LSP attributes. Thus, due care should be taken. In section 7, I suggest to expand details for security considerations. Finally, in section 2, there's an editorial error in the following sentence. OLD: "IFIT TLVs are o ptional and can be taken into account by the PCE during path computation." NEW: "IFIT TLVs are optional and can be taken into account by the PCE during path computation." ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks & BR！ Fengwei Qin China Mobile Research Institute No.32 Xuanwumen west street, Xicheng District, Beijing 100053, China MOBILE: 13810256551
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
