Please and thank you. —John
> On Dec 19, 2023, at 8:41 PM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > John, > > Now that the I-D has been placed on the 1/4 telechat should I spin a new > version that incorporates the outstanding PRs: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/pulls__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!C1CkLmJEflB_yG5NzS23pvZunYM61_KOufCqnD3aLWVaJZDL5UwvsYUQm373Q10IaWGT6mz5MA$ > > spt > >> 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/. >> >> - "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" :-) >> >> Thanks, >> >> —John > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
