Hi Jim, On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 6:06 PM Jim Guichard via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Jim Guichard has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-22: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for a well written document. Minor nit: > > Section 3.1 - 2nd Paragraph. Please review this paragraph as it seems to > say > that the MPLS mechanisms remain unchanged, but the text is difficult to > parse. > Please make the meaning clear. > > Yes, I can see that. The text aimed to clarify that in the case IPv6 is used (instead of IPv4) for SR-MPLS, the PCEP procedures are as per RFC 8664 and not this document. How is this change -> OLD: For the use of an IPv6 control plane but an MPLS data plane, mechanism remains the same as specified in [RFC8664]. This document describes the extension to support SRv6 in PCEP. NEW: When SR-MPLS is used with an IPv6 network, the PCEP procedures and mechanisms are as specified in [RFC8664]. When SR leverages the IPv6 forwarding plane (i.e. SRv6), the PCEP procedures and mechanisms are extended in this document. END Thanks! Dhruv > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
