Hi Mirja Thanks - I agree with you and have corrected the text.
Cheers Jon -----Original Message----- From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net] Sent: 03 April 2018 16:06 To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org; Julien Meuric <julien.meu...@orange.com>; pce-cha...@ietf.org; julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT) Mirja Kühlewind 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mostly editorial (and I guess already flagged by Alvaro and Martin): This sentence (in sec 3 as well as the similar sentence in sec 4) should not use normative language because that basically non-sensical: "If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, it MUST ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440])." Should be instead: "If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, it will ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440])." _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
