Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-15: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for addressing my Discuss points! I do have some additional comments on the -15. Section 2.3 I'm still a bit concerned that the references linked from Table 4 may not provide a clear description of what count as Traffic Parameters for our purposes (and how they are encoded), but not in a way that I can express more concretely. Perhaps this is made clear by some RSVP-TE documents with which I am not familiar. ection 2.5.1 root and other endpoints TLVs are the leaves. The root endpoint MUST be the same for all END-POINTS objects. If the root endpoint is not I'm not sure how broadly scoped this restriction is -- it is, e.g., per-LSP? Section 2.5.2.5 with L bit cleared. At most 2 LABEL_SET TLVs MAY be present with the O bit set, with at most one of these having the U bit set and at most one of these having the U bit cleared. For a given U bit value, if This went MUST->MAY in this rev, though I think it might be fine to just use a lowercase "may", since the requirements language doesn't map terribly well to the restriction we're making. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce