Hi Ines, Many thanks for your review. If you please see inline [MN] for your questions/comments.
Regards, Mahendra -----Original Message----- From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2019 9:36 AM To: rtg-...@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection....@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-07 Reviewer: Ines Robles Review result: Ready Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__trac.tools.ietf.org_area_rtg_trac_wiki_RtgDir&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=OfH7jqq3ZeA-wTebRlEpsyIMH15hY5NeZNI8AnstJzY&s=SHbxX7UldX-WPWAR_ar5R2SzCgNY4hbVoCqrXP8GYAU&e= Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-07.txt Reviewer: Ines Robes Review Date: 09-07-2019 IETF LC End Date: -- Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written. This document specifies a stateful PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs for the purpose of setting up path protection. I have some minor questions. Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: No minor issues found. Nits: from the tool -> Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). [MN] We will fix this in new version. Comments/Questions: 1- about "..associate one working LSP with one or more protection LSPs..." --> Is there a limit of numbers of protection LSPs to be associated with one working LSP? [MN] This limit depends on the local configuration and standards (including RSVP-TE protection) do not restrict the same. 2- About Table 1: PPAG TLV, the name of the flag "S - STANDBY" should be "Secondary" (S) as per Figure 1? [MN] We will fix this in new version. Thank you for this document, Ines. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
