Thanks a lot, for review and comments, Mike. Please responses inline <S>. I’ll submit updated version when the draft submissions will be unblocked.
Regards, Samuel From: Mike Bishop via Datatracker <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 3 March 2026 at 22:07 To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Mike Bishop's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-14: (with COMMENT) Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-14: 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-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # IESG review of draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-14 CC @MikeBishop ## Comments ### Section 2, paragraph 0 Thank you for this thorough Terminology section. ### Section 4.1, paragraph 1 This is the first use of the term "O flag" for the Strict-Path flag. Consider using one name consistently throughout the document, or connecting the terms more explicitly if you must retain both for consistency with existing documents. <S> I’ll make it more consistent. There is already similar flag for stateless messages in RFC5440 and that RFC is calling it “O bit”, so I’ll make it consistent with that. ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Typos <S> Sure, I can fix those. #### Section 3.3, paragraph 1 ``` - The PATH-MODIFICATION TLV is optional. If the TLV is included in + The PATH-MODIFICATION TLV is optional. If the TLV is included in the + ++++ ``` #### Section 3.3, paragraph 1 ``` - processed, subsequent instances MUST be ignored. - ^ + processed; subsequent instances MUST be ignored. + ^ ``` #### Section 4.1, paragraph 4 ``` - The flag is applicable only for stateful messages. Existing O flag - ^ + The flag is applicable only for stateful messages. The existing O flag + ^^^^^ ```
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
