Hi WG,
I read the document and think it’s in good shape.
Two minor comments as follow:
1. In section 4.2 there is a new Error-Value TBD6 “Missing Mandatory TLV”
(which is also inconsistent with the name in section 6.3), however for existing
Error-Value under Error-Type “Mandatory Object Missing”, the missed TLVs are
explicitly specified, so probably we can rename it as “SR policy Cpath ID
missing” or something similar.
2. In section 5.1 there are a few flags defined, do we need to show the
‘flags’ fonts in the TLV format in Fig. 6? I mean the following:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flags |L|S|I|E|P|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Best wishes,
Haomian
From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 6:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: pce-chairs <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Subject: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12
Hi WG,
This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/
Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to
the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you
support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is
ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are
most welcome.
The WG LC will end on Monday 22nd January 2024.
A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption.
Thanks,
Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
