Thanks again Erik, Processing the details now...
> [ 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." Yes, modulo s/that the/whether the/ > [ section 5 ] > > * Is it well-known whether multibyte numeric fields are network > endian or not? I think so. I think all PCEP integers are transmitted MSB first. Calling this one out for "clarification" would cause the reader to wonder whether it was in some way special (which it isn't). > [ section 6 ] > > * "The TLVs follows" -> "The TLVs follow", I think Well, maybe "The TLV follows" 😊 > [ section 7 ] > > * "carries one or more ... TLV" -> "...TLVs." Well, you caused an 'argument' between me and my copy-editor wife ☹ I think this one is right. Warriner says "the verb agrees with the nearest subject." Thus, "There is one or more cat," and "One or more dogs are in the box." But for consistency with other places in the document, which has otherwise been entirely inconsistent, (and to save my marriage even though I know I'm right) I've added the 's'. > * "defines following new types" -> "defines the following new types" Ack > * 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 included)? Interesting, but I think that what happens then is you have to specify how to handle what happens if the addresses are included. That processing would either be to throw an error or to ignore the addresses. Furthermore, since the format of the structure is fixed, the address fields always exist and it is moot whether an address has been included and set to zero (e.g., 0.0.0.0) or whether it has been not included. Since processing can continue correctly by ignoring the addresses, it is better to go down that path. > [ section 7.1 ] > > * "carries one or more ... TLV" -> "...TLVs." There being no section 7.1, I think this is per the previous comment. > [ section 8.4 ] > > * "will be place on a single tunnel" -> "will be placed into a single tunnel" > perhaps? Ack > [ section 8.7 ] > > * Recommend splitting up the long sentence with ", however" -> > ". However, ..." Yes. Good. > * "if the Flow Specification make" -> "if the Flow Specifications make"? Ack > * 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. =) Flow Specifications can (sadly or happily, depending on your outlook on life) be installed in a number of ways including the CLI and BGP. This is just another way of doing stuff (mainly for a different purpose). Best, Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
