From: Pce <[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 26 September 2022 14:01
This message starts a 2-week WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-19. Please review and share any feedback using the PCE mailing list. This WGLC will end on Tuesday October 11. <tp> I commented before that this has inadequate security since it mandates TLS1.3 where early data opens the door to all sorts of nasties. Here are my other comments. pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls I think is now RFC8779 s.4.1.1.1 just one List I see s.6.1 the list is also keyed on lsp-id The YANG module has lower case must/should; is this intended? The timer names are not those of RFC5440 - perhaps worth a note giving the mapping even if it is only hyphen-minus container SR set to true if SR is enabled Where is that enabled, for what scope? likewise msd; other I-D decompose MSD three ways on a per signalling basis, I am not clear which MSD applies here. A bit like MTU, it might need a context to be clear. The reference for path-key looks like it is a line too long RFC8231 says srp-id ffffffff is reserved in which case the range should not be ..max; this was correct in -18 I do not understand the use of must + error-message for config false. I am used to it for validating an update and cannot see when this message will be generated. This occurs in a number of places. RPC often have a nacm default-deny-all s.9 The YANG modules .../is/are/ Tom Petch Thanks, Julien _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
