Hi All, I have read the last version of the draft and I support its progress. However, I have few suggestions for the authors: - I would change the title of Section 2 to "Use cases" instead of "Motivation". - In section 3.3, I suggest to add a reference to section 4.3 where the usage of MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is mentioned. Likewise, in section 3.4, I would add a reference to section 4.4 where the usage of MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is also cited. - For completeness, you can consider to add a new subsection (4.5) to further specify the usage of MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV, as for the other TLVs in sections 4.3 and 4.4. - In section 4.1.1, it is not clear how the example of the last paragraph is related to the previous text. Maybe a revision is needed to clarify and improve readability. - I would explain the acronym PLSP in section 4.3 or in the Terminology section. - The entire section 6 includes examples which could also be moved to an Appendix.
Regards, Giuseppe -----Original Message----- From: Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 6:26 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19 (Ends 2026-02-24) This message starts a WG Last Call for: draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19 This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-02-24 Abstract: Certain traffic engineering path computation problems require solutions that consist of multiple traffic paths that together form a solution. However, current PCEP extensions can only return a single traffic path, which cannot meet the requirements. This document defines mechanisms to encode multiple paths for a single set of objectives and constraints. This allows encoding of multiple Segment Lists per Candidate Path within a Segment Routing Policy. The new Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) mechanisms are designed to be generic, which allows for future re-use outside of SR Policy. The new PCEP mechanisms are applicable to both stateless and stateful PCEP. Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 and RFC 8281 to allow encoding of multiple Segment Lists in PCEP. Please indicate your support or concern for this draft on the mailing list. 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 that it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-multipath/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
