Nice collection of nits, Erik. Thanks. Will attend to them when the next version comes out.
Best, Adrian -----Original Message----- From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Sent: 23 August 2020 02:28 To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flows...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; Julien Meuric <julien.meu...@orange.com>; julien.meu...@orange.com Subject: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-10: (with COMMENT) Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-10: 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-pcep-flowspec/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [ section 2 ] * "a flag is provided to indicate that the sender of a PCEP message that includes a Flow Specification is intended to be installed as a Longest Prefix Match route, or..." This didn't scan too well for me. It seems the subject is the sender as written, but perhaps the message itself is the thing that "is intended to be installed..."? Oh, perhaps this is what's meant: "a flag is provided to indicate that the sender of a PCEP message that includes a Flow Specification intends it to be installed as a Longest Prefix Match route or as a Flow Specification policy." [ section 5 ] * Is it well-known whether multibyte numeric fields are network endian or not? [ section 6 ] * "The TLVs follows" -> "The TLVs follow", I think [ section 7 ] * "carries one or more ... TLV" -> "...TLVs." * "defines following new types" -> "defines the following new types" * Purely out of curiosity, if either S=1 or G=1 can/should it be specified that the source/group addresses simply not be included (i.e. the bits indicate not only that the field is not examined but that it's not inclued)? [ section 7.1 ] * "carries one or more ... TLV" -> "...TLVs." [ section 8.4 ] * "will be place on a single tunnel" -> "will be placed into a single tunnel" perhaps? [ section 8.7 ] * Recommend splitting up the long sentence with ", however" -> ". However, ..." * "if the Flow Specification make" -> "if the Flow Specifications make"? * Maybe I've lost too much mental state between readings, but the final paragraph, as written, makes me wonder how a FlowSpec gets installed in the first place. I assume I'm missing something in my naive reading. =) _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
