> On Dec 5, 2023, at 12:03, John Scudder <j...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > Thanks for this document. Looks good, I've requested IETF last call. > > A couple of notes below, they didn't seem worth holding up the last call for, > but please consider them for your next revision. > > - "what PCEPS implementations do if a PCEPS supports more than one version". > I don't think PCEPS (second occurrence) takes an article (i.e. referring to > "a PCEPS" is weird). Some rewrite seems called for, perhaps s/a PCEPS/one/.
This was also noted during the RTGDIR review. I suggested the following change: https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pull/13/files > - "neither the PCC nor the PCE should establish a PCEPS with > TLS connection with an unknown, unexpected, or incorrectly identified > peer;" > > Isn't "PCEPS with TLS" redundant, doesn't the ess in PCEPS imply TLS? In > which case, just drop "with TLS". (See also, "ATM machine" :-) It is! It would also be like saying HTTPS with TLS :) I did end deleting that para though while addressing the RTGDIR comments. > Thanks, > > —John Cheers, spt _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
