Ignas Bagdonas has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a major comment, I am not balloting DISCUSS at this time as author's intentions may have been to do the right thing, and it has simply slipped or not yet done. Manageability section lists the right questions, but there are no answers to those questions. Could authors please answer the questions in section 9? Would capabilities be augmenting the PCEP YANG model, under entity or peer branches? It does not seem that there is a need for a separate model just for this extension? _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
