On Jul 1, 2019, at 4:58 PM, Cyril Margaria <cyril.marga...@gmail.com<mailto:cyril.marga...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the review, please see inline Best regards, Cyril Margaria On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 20:41, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> wrote: Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-14: 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-gmpls-pcep-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- * Section 2.5.2 "In this object type the order of the TLVs MUST be followed according to the object type definition." Not sure what this means. Can you clarify? [MC] This refers to Section 2.5.1 Generalized Endpoint Object Type, the TLV ordering matters (for a given object type). A better wording could be as follows: NEW: All endpoint TLVs have the standard PCEP TLV header as defined in [RFC5440] section 7.1. For the Generalized Endpoint Object Type the TLVs MUST follow the ordering defined in Section 2.5.1. Works for me. * Section 2.7 "C-Type (8 bits): the C-Type of the included Label Object as defined in [RFC3471]." I could not find any references to C-Types in RFC3471. Shouldn't you be referring to RFC3473 instead? I have a similar comment for the Label field. [MC] The reference should indeed be RFC3473 for the C-Type. Excellent. Thanks for the changes. Regards Suresh
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
