Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-24: 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-sr-bidir-path/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 7, paragraph 1 > A new Association Type for the Association object, 'Bidirectional SR > LSP Association' is introduced in this document. Additional security > considerations related to LSP associations due to a malicious PCEP > speaker are described in [RFC8697] and apply to this Association > Type. Hence, securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer > Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best current > practices in [RFC9325]. The last sentence sounds incomplete. Maybe: "Hence, securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best current practices in [RFC9325] is RECOMMENDED." The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Document references draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19, but -20 is the latest available revision. Section 2, paragraph 4 > or by a PCC as described in the sub-sections below for the case when there a > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ This word is normally spelled as one. Section 3.2, paragraph 4 > o nodes in a network) can be associated together by using the association gro > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This phrase is redundant. Consider writing "associated". Section 4.1, paragraph 3 > nal SR LSPs are summarized in the sub-sections below. 5.1. PLSP-ID Usage As p > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ This word is normally spelled as one. Section 8.3, paragraph 1 > EPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Ele > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply "Secure Transport". _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
