Hi PCEWG, Authors Thanks for the document. I've read through the latest version, and it is a clear read in its use cases and purpose. I have two questions/comments below, but do not think these fundamentally change the document and support its publication.
Thanks Andrew - Introduction Should the mutual dependency with draft-ietf-pce-multipath be simplified to allow independent draft progression? The text basically just says "can also use in composite path" without much description (which makes sense as it's described in multipath) so I'm questioning its value and whether to just replace the reference with below. (..after writing this I see Adrian suggested dropping it, which I am also okay with). "This document does not restrict the TLV inclusion to only use cases or objects defined below. Other documents may describe and leverage the Color TLV specified in this document in other PCEP objects." - Capability exchange Should the capability exchange be more specific? As indicated in the document, the object carrying the TLV depends on purpose. Currently that's in LSP Object(rsvp steering case) or ERO (composite case). An implementation may support one or the other or neither, but from the capability exchange (in this document and multipath) this seems indistinguishable. Perhaps this a concern for draft-ietf-pce-multipath to sort out, but makes me wonder if draft-ietf-pcep-pcep-color capability should restrict the capability to usage in the LSP object when path-setup=type is RSVP? From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Date: Sunday, June 16, 2024 at 12:24 AM To: pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org> Cc: pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-co...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-co...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-04 CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi WG, Reminder to respond to this WGLC poll. Please be more explicit in your support (or not) for publishing this I-D by responding on the mailing list. Silence makes it hard to judge consensus. Thanks! Dhruv On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:20 AM Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote: Hi WG, This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-04. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color/ 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 Tuesday 18 June 2024. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
