Dear authors, Thank for addressing the comments received during WG LC and RtgDir reviews. Technically, the I-D looks almost ready.
I still have one pending question, related to section 8.7. (Priorities and Overlapping Flow Specifications). I understand this section as "priorities within PCEP-installed flow specs follow the same ordering rules as BGP-installed flow specs, i.e. [RFC5575]". Let us now look at a device supporting both protocols to install flow specs: - Is there an implicit scope associated to each set of flow specs making them mutually exclusive? - If both sets can overlap, can we assume that priority rules do not care about the protocol used to install the flow specs? Adding a couple of sentences may be enough to clarify that. Please find below a few additional nits. ------ 1. Introduction --- - The abstract uses "traffic engineered networks", the intro "traffic engineering networks". I do not have any strong preference, but consistency would be welcome. (By the way, no hyphen in "traffic-engineered"?) - s/to Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks/to Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)-controlled networks/ - s/about the the LSPs/about the LSPs/ - OLD: The data flows intended for a tunnel can be described using Flow Specification Components, and when PCEP is in use for tunnel initiation it makes sense for that same protocol to be used to distribute the Flow Specification Components that describe what data is to flow on those tunnels. NEW: The data flows intended for a tunnel can be described using Flow Specification Components; when PCEP is in use for tunnel initiation, it makes sense for that same protocol to be used to distribute the Flow Specification Components that describe what data is to flow on those tunnels. ------ 3.2. Elements of Procedure --- - s/in each case including whether/in each case. This includes whether/ ------ 6. Flow Filter TLV --- OLD: Only one Flow Filter TLV can be present and represents the complete definition of a Flow Specification for traffic to be placed on the tunnel indicated by the PCEP message in which the PCEP Flow Spec Object is carried. NEW: Only one Flow Filter TLV can be present and represents the complete definition of a Flow Specification for traffic to be placed on a tunnel; this tunnel is indicated by the PCEP message in which the PCEP Flow Spec Object is carried. ------ 7. Flow Specification TLVs --- [Page 14] "Two bit flags (S and G) are defined. They have the common meanings for wildcarding in multicast." -> At least a reference would be appreciated to teach about what "common" refers to. [Page 15] "if a Multicast Flow Specification TLV is received with S bit = 0 and G bit = 1 the receiver SHOULD respond" -> Is there a reason why it is not a MUST? ------ 13. Manageability Considerations --- - s/view the the Flow Specifications/view the Flow Specifications/ - s/implementations MUST support indicating/implementations MUST indicate/ [Guessing it was wrongly fixed in -06.] ------ Thanks, Julien _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
