Hi Julien, Thanks for this review. We are making all the changes except:
> Section 6 > I reckon "BGP-TE" spans a broader scope than H-PCE. I feel like > draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability could be an option. Note the > text should find a home before being dropped. In the latter case, 2 > references along the I-D will need a pointer update. If it is kept in > there, I would suggest to rephrase the section title (the reference tag > is all right) to avoid misunderstanding, e.g. "A Note on the Use of BGP > for TED Synchronization". We feel this section serves two purposes: 1. explain how BGP-TE is not necessarily a suitable substitute for H-PCE 2. show how BGP-TE may be a good northbound The first point (1st two paras of section 6) should stay. Second point is 3rd para of section 6. It is quite short. We agree it could be in applicability statement and we will add a forward pointer, but we think it is useful to keep the text here as well. As a compromise, we have split it out into a separate section named as you suggested. New revision soon. Cheers, Adrian (and probably Dan and the others :-) _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
