Hi Mahendra, Thank you very much for addressing my comments
Best, Ines. On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:42 AM Mahendra Singh Negi <mahendrasi...@huawei.com> wrote: > 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
