Hi Authors, I did a chair's review of the I-D. Expect a separate shepherd review from Julien. I found minor issues that can be easily fixed.
(1) The issue with number of authors on the front page is bound to come up, either provide valid justification to your shepherd or reduce to 5. (2) Add reference to RFC8051 in introduction, which had a section on protection. (3) It would be good to explicitly state that in PCE-initiated LSPs case, the association group is created by PCE. (4) Section 4.1. OLD: During state synchronization, a PCC MUST report all the existing path protection association groups as well as any path protection flags to PCE(s) as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. NEW: During state synchronization, a PCC report all the existing LSP state as described in [RFC8231], the the association group membership pertaining to a LSP is also reported as per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. This includes PPAG. END Nits ---- s/Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP)/Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)/ s/between one a pair of PCEs/between a pair of PCEs/ s/Stateful pce/Stateful PCE/ s/Path Protection Association Object Type/Path Protection Association Type/ s/[A|a]ssociation-type/Association type/ Section 4.4, extra "." at the end. Section 4.5, closing braces missing, end of 2nd paragraph. Expand on 1st use - PCRpt, PCUpd, PCInitiate... Regards, Dhruv _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
