[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-11

[daniel]

Hi Folks, 

As per Dhruv's instruction. 😊 

/VocalMode: ON 

I’ve been following the PCE WG's SR work, and specifically support the adoption 
of this I-D. 

Why? The I-D provides an operationally important piece of PCEP for SR-MPLS 
networks. The ability to require the PCC to prove it can actually resolve and 
program the SIDs before bringing the path up seems like a useful feature. Also, 
the I-D has much-needed capabilities and error-handling procedure(s)/code(s), 
good job.  

What? If the document is adopted, an "Implementation Status" section would be 
useful, see RFC 7942. 

Willingness? Please find below several minor comments for inclusion in a future 
version of the document. I'm willing to provide further reviews of the document 
as it progresses.

/VocalMode: OFF

**Abstract:** “is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by the Path Computation 
Element (PCE)” to “is explicitly requested by the Path Computation Element 
(PCE) to verify SID(s)”.

**Section 2 (heading):** “SID verification flag(V-Flag)” to “SID verification 
flag (V-flag)” and maybe use lowercase consistently throughout the rest of the 
document.

**Section 2.1:** “though local policy on the PCC MAY still trigger 
verification” to “note that local policy at the PCC MAY still trigger 
verification”.

**Section 2.1:** “differs depending on direction” to “differs depending on the 
direction”.

**Section 2.1:** “if it received a PCUpd/PCInitiate with V-flag set” to “if it 
received a PCUpd or PCInitiate with the V-flag set”.

**Section 2.2:** “is ignored on receipt at the PCE” to “is ignored upon receipt 
at the PCE”.

**Section 2.3:** “determines that "Verification fails" to “determines that 
verification fails.

**Section 3:** “In order to ensure compatibility …” to “To ensure compatibility 
…”.

**Section 3.1:** “LSPs setup using” to “LSPs set up using”. 

**Section 3.1:** “with the V flag set” to “with the V-flag set” (two instances 
of "V flag"non-hyphenated use, either way, but please keep the use consistent) 

**Section 3.1:** “include the V-flag in RRO subobjects” to “include the V-flag 
in SR-RRO subobjects”

Thanks, Dan. 

From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com> 
Sent: 23 December 2025 12:02
To: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-11

Hi WG,

As one of co-authors of this draft, I support adoption of this draft.

Note that version 12 was submitted during adoption and it updated the draft in 
a few sections, so please make sure that you are checking updated version.

Regards,
Samuel

From: Dhruv Dhody <mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>
Date: Wednesday, 10 December 2025 at 14:04
To: mailto:pce@ietf.org <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Cc: pce-chairs <mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-11
Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for 
draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-11

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification/

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 Wednesday 31st Dec 2025.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org