Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-34: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-34 Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Dhruv Dhody for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric # COMMENTS (non-blocking) ## Abstract s/This document describes/This document defines/ as this is an experimental document ? ## Section 1 `native IP` could be defined in a couple of words for readers not familiar to RFC 8735. Should PCE & PCC be expanded on first use even if they are listed in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list ? E.g., PCEP is expanded while it is on the list. ## Section 6.4 Please add a reference to `IPinIP tunnel` as there are various encapsulations defined by the IETF. ## Section 7.2 Should the local/peer addresses be qualified as unicast (as opposed to multicast) ? Can those addresses be link-local ? (possibly applicable to other sections) ## Section 7.4 Suggest making a specific "For IPv4" similar to the current "For IPv6" as opposed to common fields such as No of Prefixes, ... ## Section 12 I wonder whether an implementation section referring to implementation in preparation or simulations is really useful. See also RFC 7492. ## Section 14 Suggest adding the URI of the various registries to be super clear, e.g., https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-path-setup-types # NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) Sometimes "bytes" is written capitalized as "Bytes" without any reason. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
