Thanks - I recognize the need to clean up the data tracker pending review. I was the document shepherd so I had been following the document quite closely.
Acee > On Jul 25, 2023, at 06:58, Liushucheng (Will LIU, Strategy & Industry > Development) <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 9:47 PM > To: Liushucheng (Will LIU, Strategy & Industry Development) > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>; Last > Call <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected] > <mailto:[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). > > <image001.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
