Hello Rakesh, Thanks for your message: we are progressing to a solution. For the contentious section 2, what about something like
"This document extends the following term defined in [RFC3031]: Label Switched Path (LSP), while the base PCEP ... signaling protocol. As specified in the Terminology Section of [RFC9603], ... Setup Type." ? Of course, with RFC 3031 & 9603 being normative. Regards, -éric From: Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, 28 February 2026 at 05:22 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Thank you, Eric for the review comments. Please see replies inline with <RG>... Also, attaching the work in progress diff file and TXT file. From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 27, 2026 at 10:12 AM To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-22: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-22: Discuss 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-sr-bidir-path/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke INT AD comments for draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-22 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric Note: this ballot comments follow the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues. ## DISCUSS (blocking) As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise. ### Section 2 I am afraid that a document cannot define "LSP" as in RFC 3031 (which is only about MPLS), then add a note explaining that SRv6 SID list can be shoehorned in the MPLS LSP. Consider rewriting this section without mentionning RFC 3031. If reference to RFC 3031 is kept, then it must be normative and not informative as in the current I-D. <RG> RFC 3031 introduces the term LSP as: label switched path The path through one or more LSRs at one level of the hierarchy followed by a packets in a particular FEC. <RG> I think it is good to keep this reference. We have changed RFC 3031 to normative. <RG> The SRv6 LSP text is copy and paste from RFC 9603. I think it’s good to keep it as it is in that RFC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Abstract Strongly suggest rewriting the abstract as it is mostly unreadable (is the first paragraph required?). <RG> Ok, how about the following: Segment Routing (SR) steers packets through a network using the IPv6 or MPLS data planes via source routing. Stateful Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions are defined for SR Traffic Engineering (TE) LSPs. PCEP supports grouping two RSVP-TE-signaled, unidirectional MPLS-TE Label-Switched Paths (LSPs) with one in each direction in a network into an associated bidirectional LSP. This document extends PCEP support to group two unidirectional SR LSPs into an associated bidirectional SR LSP. The mechanisms defined in this document apply to both stateless and stateful PCEs for PCE-initiated and PCC- initiated LSPs. Thanks, Rakesh ## NITS (very cosmetic) ### Use of SVG graphics To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg tool to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try especially if the I-D uses the Kramdown file format ;-)
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
