Hi Dhruv & WG，
I have reviewed this draft , but I have a few minor (non-blocking) comments:
1.Introduction
...[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6] specifies the procedures
and PCEP extensions of PCECC for SRv6. An SRv6 SID is represented as LOC:FUNCT
([RFC8986]) where LOC is the L most significant bits and FUNCT is the 128-L
least significant bits...
According to RFC8986, it would be better to change the SID representation to:
LOC:FUNCT:AGR.
[I-D.dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6] is already a working group
draft, and [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy] is published as RFC9256.
Please check other referenced drafts for the latest draft version.
7. IANA Considerations
Section 4 defines a new Erro-value=TBD for ID space control failure, but the
IANA condiferations section does not cover this part of the IANA allocation.
Best Regards，
Ran
Original
From: DhruvDhody <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Cc: pce-chairs <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;
Date: 2024年05月17日 19:11
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Hi WG,
This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/
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 Monday 3rd June 2024.
Please be more vocal during WG polls!
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
