Hi, Can you please upload a new version of the I-D that tidies up the document in preparation for WG adoption call?
- Limit the number of authors to 5 - Add text to the security consideration section (add references to relevant rfcs if no new security threat is assumed) - Think about adding a mangebility consideration - Instead of saying that the applicability to RSVP-TE and SR-TE better yet say it is applicable to all path setup types! - I am confused by - "For example Adjacency SIDs MAY be used, but Prefix SIDs MUST NOT be used (even if there is only one adjacency). the PCE MUST use Adjacency SIDs only."; are Adj SID "MAY" or "MUST"?? It should be MUST right? - What is the way to indicate that a computed path no longer meets the original constraints when the recomputation is blocked? Isn't that something that is useful for operators to know? - When the P flag is cleared or the TLV is not present, we fall back to the existing scenario and in which one would assume PCE does the recomputation based on various triggers yet the draft uses "MAY recompute"... could this be a "SHOULD"? - Add implementation Status if you have plans of implementations! Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
