Hi Huaimo,
Thanks for the feedback! Comments inline with <MK></MK>.
Thanks,
Mike.
-----Original Message-----
From: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@futurewei.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 11:12 AM
To: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>;
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12
Hi Everyone,
I read through the document and have the following comments.
1. In Abstract, there are three references (one [RFC9256 ], two [RFC8664]s).
It seems better to remove these references by rephrasing.
<MK>
Sure, let me see if I can avoid references in the Abstract.
</MK>
2. It seems that an SR Policy has one identifier which consists of Headend,
color and endpoint.
* Should "SR Policy Identifiers uniquely identify the SR Policy within
the network." in section 3.1 be changed to "An SR Policy Identifier uniquely
identifies an SR Policy within the network. "?
* Should "SR Policy Identifiers consist of:" in section 3.1 be changed
to "An SR Policy Identifier consists of:"?
* "Identifiers" in other sections may be changed accordingly.
<MK>
Hmmm, I see your point. I guess "SR Policy Identifiers" can be misinterpreted
to mean that each entry is a separate identifier on its own.
Sure, I can change 'Identifiers" -> "Identifier" if nobody objects to it.
</MK>
1. It seems that an SR Policy Candidate Path has one Identifier, which
consists of Protocol Origin, Originator and Discriminator.
* Should "SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers uniquely identify the SR
Policy Candidate Path within the context of an SR Policy." in section 3.2 be
changed to "An SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier uniquely identifies an SR
Policy Candidate Path within the context of an SR Policy."?
* Should "SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers consist of:" be changed
to "An SR Policy Candidate Path Identifiers consists of:"?
* "Identifiers" in other sections (e.g., section 4.2.2) may be changed
accordingly.
<MK>
Sure, I can change 'Identifiers" -> "Identifier" if nobody objects to it.
</MK>
1. In the second sentence of section 5.4, "streering" seems a typo.
<MK>
Thanks, will fix.
</MK>
Best Regards,
Huaimo
From: Pce <pce-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2024 5:29 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>;
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12
Hi WG,
This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/
Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed to
the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you
support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and it is
ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are
most welcome.
The WG LC will end on Monday 22nd January 2024.
A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
