Hi Alvaro
Many thanks for your comments. I'm picking up this thread and replying as PCE working group chair, as the authors are unavailable. I am very sorry for the delay. For some reason I can't find the original email with your comments in, so I have scraped the text from the datatracker and pasted it below. Please see my proposed resolutions inline below, marked with "Jon>" Best regards Jon Just some minor comments: (1) Section 3.2 This document defines a new PCEP message, the LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message, which a PCE can send to a PCE to request the initiaton or deletion of an LSP. s/...PCE can send to a PCE.../...PCE can send to a PCC... Jon> OK. (2) Section 5.3: "The source address MAY be either specified or left up to the PCC decision using the 0.0.0.0 value." These seem to be the only two possible options, so s/MAY/MUST. Jon> OK. So, including the feedback we got from Adam Roach, the new text is: ''The source address MUST either be specified or left for the PCC to choose by setting it to "0.0.0.0" (if the destination is an IPv4 address) or "::" (if the destination is an IPv6 address).'' (3) Also from Section 5.3: "...the END-POINTS object MAY be included to explicitly convey the destination...For LSPs to be setup by other means, the END-POINTS object MAY be omitted..." You already wrote that "other setup methods are outside the scope". Also, not including the END-POINTS object is not an indication of other types of LSPs, as its use is optional to start with. Take out the last sentence. Jon> Fine with me.
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
