Hi WG
I surport the adoption of this draft, it is very useful. but I have a few minor
(non-blocking) comments:
3.1. LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
The LSP object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231], and the new extended
flags TLV is defined in [RFC9357]. This draft reuse the new extended flags TLV
is defined in [RFC9357], and only defines a new flag,right? If so, it is
recommended that the title be changed to "New Flag in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAGS
TLV" which is more appropriate.
I am confused when I see the description below in the draft:
In addition, Not only [I-D.peng-pce-entropy-label-position] has defined the
E-flag, IANA has already assigned multiple LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Flag Field ,
see link:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-extended-flag-tlv-flags.
It is recommended to delete the description of E-flag.
Best Regards,
Ran
Original
From: DhruvDhody <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Cc: [email protected]
<[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年12月01日 18:33
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/
Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why /
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
Please respond by Friday 15th Dec 2023.
Please be more vocal during WG polls!
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
