Hi Acee, Yes, thanks for your kind reminder. I noticed that before I submit. However as the system still said pending so I tried to close this.
(I thought I finished my review for version -10, however, it seems the second round of review was missed by me, sorry) Regards, | 致礼! Will LIU | 刘树成 From: Acee Lindem <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 9:47 PM To: Liushucheng (Will LIU, Strategy & Industry Development) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Last Call <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-13 Hi Will, I’m not sure what happened with the scheduling of this review, but this document is already an RFC (since January). [ietf-logo-card.png] RFC 9353: IGP Extension for Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Security Capability Support in PCE Discovery (PCED)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9353/> datatracker.ietf.org<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9353/> I’m glad you feel it is ready for publication. Thanks, Acee On Jul 25, 2023, at 06:27, Will LIU via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Reviewer: Will LIU Review result: Ready Hi all, I have reviewed draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-13 as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. “ When a Path Computation Element (PCE) is a Label Switching Router (LSR) or a server participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), its presence and path computation capabilities can be advertised using IGP flooding. The IGP extensions for PCE Discovery (PCED) (RFCs 5088 and 5089) define a method to advertise path computation capabilities using IGP flooding for OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. However, these specifications lack a method to advertise Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) security (e.g., Transport Layer Security (TLS) and TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)) support capability.” My overall view of the document is 'Ready' for publication. ** Technical ** No. ** Editorial ** No. (I thought I finished my review for version -10, however, it seems the second round of review was missed by me) Regards, Will (Shucheng LIU)
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
