Hi Samuel, Thanks for addressing my comment.
Cheers. > On Mar 4, 2026, at 5:03 AM, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Ketan, > > I’ll update it to uppercase SHOULD/MUST NOT then (updated version will be > uploaded when submission will be open again). > > Regards, > Samuel > > From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, 4 March 2026 at 13:46 > To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> > Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]>, > [email protected] <[email protected]>, > [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-14: (with COMMENT) > > Hi Samuel, > > Please check inline below. > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 5:00 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Mahesh, > > Please find responses inline <S>. > > Thanks, > Samuel > > From: Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Tuesday, 3 March 2026 at 22:42 > To: The IESG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-14: (with COMMENT) > > Mahesh Jethanandani 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 4.1, paragraph 4 > > If the O flag is set to 1 (either in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for > > stateful messages or in the RP object for stateless messages) for SR > > paths introduced in [RFC8664], the PCE MUST use only Segment > > Identifiers (SIDs) that explicitly specify adjacencies for packet > > forwarding. Adjacency SIDs should be used, but Prefix SIDs must not > > be used (even if there is only one adjacency). > > Please use BCP14 keywords: > > s/Adjacency SIDs should be used, but Prefix SIDs must not be used/Adjacency > SIDs SHOULD be used, but Prefix SIDs MUST NOT be used/ > > <S> This was changed recently (diff between version 12 and version 13) since > original text was: > > For example, Adjacency SIDs SHOULD be used, but Prefix SIDs MUST NOT be used > (even if there is only one adjacency). > > And we received comment that it is not ideal to specify it as an example, but > still use normative language. Since we are not describing behavior for all > SIDs types and that statement was really supposed to just provide additional > details on previous statement (which is normative already), then I can change > it back to “For example, …” and keep lowercase should/must not. > > Would that work for you? > > Ketan - I hope that would still be acceptable for you as well. > > KT> I am ok with Mahesh's proposal. The original issue that I raised was the > use of both "for example" and BCP14 words. Then both were removed. It is OK > to use the BCP14 keywords as long as "for example" is not used. Also, this > statement does not preclude the use of other types of SIDs so there is no > issue. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > NIT > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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. > > Section 8.4, paragraph 6 > > EPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Ele > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply > "Secure Transport”. > > <S> I guess that this is just false positive as even title of RFC8253 is > “Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport ..." > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
