Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
I'm OK with downgrading the "must" to a "may" (in lowercase). Cheers Jon From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk] Sent: 19 November 2017 14:43 To: 'Julien Meuric' <julien.meu...@orange.com>; 'Dhruv Dhody' <dhruv.dh...@huawei.com>; Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints That works for me, although I would probably lower-case the "MAY". A From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: 17 November 2017 17:30 To: Dhruv Dhody; Jonathan Hardwick Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org>; pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints Hi, IMHO, the correct wording lies in between. RFC 5440 set the default for PCEP ("A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error"). Further specification (e.g. RFC 8231) MAY add message-specific behavior, but I think it is wrong to mandate a new behavior for each new message. I would thus suggest : If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. Otherwise, the object is ignored. Message-specific behavior MAY be specified (e.g., [RFC8231] defines rules for a PCC to handle an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) message). My 2 cents, Julien Nov. 13, 2017 - dhruv.dh...@huawei.com<mailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com>: Section 5 The following paragraph does not tell the whole story. A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised experimental object - it is inconsistent that you don't cover these cases. (FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.) [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Yes. How about I update to this - If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. Otherwise the object is ignored. In case of stateful PCE messages [RFC8231], the P flag is ignored and the unknown object handling is as per the stateful PCE extensions. And let's try to handle the inconsistency in RFC 8231 with an errata perhaps? And handle PCE-initiated during AUTH48? [Jon] I think this is OK, but if we are just going to point the reader at RFC8231, then we might as well do the same with RFC5440, rather than duplicate its text. And we should write something that allows for the possibility that more message types may be relevant in future. How about If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of [RFC5440]. A PCC handles an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) message according to the rules of [RFC8231] and, in an LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message, according to the rules of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Any document that adds a new PCEP message type must specify how to handle unknown objects on that message. Note that this last sentence is not an RFC2119 MUST because it defines author behaviour, not device behaviour. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
That works for me, although I would probably lower-case the "MAY". A From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: 17 November 2017 17:30 To: Dhruv Dhody; Jonathan Hardwick Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints Hi, IMHO, the correct wording lies in between. RFC 5440 set the default for PCEP ("A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error"). Further specification (e.g. RFC 8231) MAY add message-specific behavior, but I think it is wrong to mandate a new behavior for each new message. I would thus suggest : If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. Otherwise, the object is ignored. Message-specific behavior MAY be specified (e.g., [RFC8231] defines rules for a PCC to handle an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) message). My 2 cents, Julien Nov. 13, 2017 - dhruv.dh...@huawei.com: Section 5 The following paragraph does not tell the whole story. A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised experimental object - it is inconsistent that you don't cover these cases. (FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.) [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Yes. How about I update to this - If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. Otherwise the object is ignored. In case of stateful PCE messages [RFC8231], the P flag is ignored and the unknown object handling is as per the stateful PCE extensions. And let's try to handle the inconsistency in RFC 8231 with an errata perhaps? And handle PCE-initiated during AUTH48? [Jon] I think this is OK, but if we are just going to point the reader at RFC8231, then we might as well do the same with RFC5440, rather than duplicate its text. And we should write something that allows for the possibility that more message types may be relevant in future. How about If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of [RFC5440]. A PCC handles an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) message according to the rules of [RFC8231] and, in an LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message, according to the rules of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Any document that adds a new PCEP message type must specify how to handle unknown objects on that message. Note that this last sentence is not an RFC2119 MUST because it defines author behaviour, not device behaviour. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
Hi, IMHO, the correct wording lies in between. RFC 5440 set the default for PCEP ("A PCEP-ERROR object is used to report a PCEP error"). Further specification (e.g. RFC 8231) MAY add message-specific behavior, but I think it is wrong to mandate a new behavior for each new message. I would thus suggest : If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. Otherwise, the object is ignored. Message-specific behavior MAY be specified (e.g., [RFC8231] defines rules for a PCC to handle an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) message). My 2 cents, Julien Nov. 13, 2017 - dhruv.dh...@huawei.com: Section 5 The following paragraph does not tell the whole story. A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised experimental object – it is inconsistent that you don’t cover these cases. (FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.) [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Yes. How about I update to this – If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. Otherwise the object is ignored. In case of stateful PCE messages [RFC8231], the P flag is ignored and the unknown object handling is as per the stateful PCE extensions. And let’s try to handle the inconsistency in RFC 8231 with an errata perhaps? And handle PCE-initiated during AUTH48? [Jon] I think this is OK, but if we are just going to point the reader at RFC8231, then we might as well do the same with RFC5440, rather than duplicate its text. And we should write something that allows for the possibility that more message types may be relevant in future. How about If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of [RFC5440]. A PCC handles an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) message according to the rules of [RFC8231] and, in an LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message, according to the rules of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Any document that adds a new PCEP message type must specify how to handle unknown objects on that message. Note that this last sentence is not an RFC2119 MUST because it defines author behaviour, not device behaviour. ___ Pce mailing list
Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
Hi Jon, Thanks for the suggested texts, I have made the update - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints/ https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03 Thanks! Dhruv From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com] Sent: 13 November 2017 08:08 To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dh...@huawei.com>; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org; 'Dhruv Dhody' <dhruv.i...@gmail.com> Subject: RE: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints Hi Dhruv Thanks for this. Trimming to the open points: Introduction The second paragraph is superfluous - I suggest deleting: Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Because of the comment for handling the unknown experimental objects for the stateful PCE messages, I think it is better to continue to keep this text. What do you think? [Jon] Right - OK to leave it. But then I think these have to become normative references. Section 5 The following paragraph does not tell the whole story. A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised experimental object - it is inconsistent that you don't cover these cases. (FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.) [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Yes. How about I update to this - If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. Otherwise the object is ignored. In case of stateful PCE messages [RFC8231], the P flag is ignored and the unknown object handling is as per the stateful PCE extensions. And let's try to handle the inconsistency in RFC 8231 with an errata perhaps? And handle PCE-initiated during AUTH48? [Jon] I think this is OK, but if we are just going to point the reader at RFC8231, then we might as well do the same with RFC5440, rather than duplicate its text. And we should write something that allows for the possibility that more message types may be relevant in future. How about If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of [RFC5440]. A PCC handles an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) message according to the rules of [RFC8231] and, in an LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message, according to the rules of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Any document that adds a new PCEP message type must specify how to handle unknown objects on that message. Note that this last sentence is not an RFC2119 MUST because it defines author behaviour, not device behaviour. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
Hi Dhruv Thanks for this. Trimming to the open points: Introduction The second paragraph is superfluous - I suggest deleting: Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Because of the comment for handling the unknown experimental objects for the stateful PCE messages, I think it is better to continue to keep this text. What do you think? [Jon] Right - OK to leave it. But then I think these have to become normative references. Section 5 The following paragraph does not tell the whole story. A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised experimental object - it is inconsistent that you don't cover these cases. (FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.) [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Yes. How about I update to this - If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. Otherwise the object is ignored. In case of stateful PCE messages [RFC8231], the P flag is ignored and the unknown object handling is as per the stateful PCE extensions. And let's try to handle the inconsistency in RFC 8231 with an errata perhaps? And handle PCE-initiated during AUTH48? [Jon] I think this is OK, but if we are just going to point the reader at RFC8231, then we might as well do the same with RFC5440, rather than duplicate its text. And we should write something that allows for the possibility that more message types may be relevant in future. How about If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of [RFC5440]. A PCC handles an unknown object in an Update (PCUpd) message according to the rules of [RFC8231] and, in an LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message, according to the rules of [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]. Any document that adds a new PCEP message type must specify how to handle unknown objects on that message. Note that this last sentence is not an RFC2119 MUST because it defines author behaviour, not device behaviour. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
Hi Jon, Thanks for your review. See inline... From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 12 November 2017 12:04 To: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints Re-sending to the correct DL :) From: Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 12 November 2017 12:02 To: 'draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org' <draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org>> Cc: 'pce@ietf.org' <pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>>; pce-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoints Hi there I am the document shepherd for this draft. Please find my review of the draft below. Many thanks for writing this draft. It looks in good shape overall. There are just a few clarifications I would like to make before we forward it to the IESG for publication. Cheers Jon Abstract This sentence about new sub-registries is misleading - the allocation policy for new sub-registries is decided by the drafts that create the sub-registries and does not have to be IETF Review. I propose: OLD IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Review. NEW IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. END [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Ack. Introduction OLD The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. NEW The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. END i.e. add reference to RFC 5440. [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Ack. The second paragraph is superfluous - I suggest deleting: Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Because of the comment for handling the unknown experimental objects for the stateful PCE messages, I think it is better to continue to keep this text. What do you think? Please apply the same comments I made for the abstract to the following text: OLD IANA established a new top- level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Review as described in [RFC8126]. NEW IANA established a top- level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. END [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Ack. Suggested change for clarity: OLD With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. NEW Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. END [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Ack. Section 5 The following paragraph does not tell the whole story. A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised experimental object - it is inconsistent that you don't cover these cases. (FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.) [[[Dhruv Dhody]]] Yes. How about I update to this - If the PCE does not understand or support an experimental object with the P flag set in the Object Header, in the Path Computation Request message (PCReq), the entire PCEP message is rejected and PCE responds with a PCErr message with Error-Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. Otherwise the object is ignored. In case of stateful PCE messag
[Pce] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
Re-sending to the correct DL :) From: Jonathan Hardwick Sent: 12 November 2017 12:02 To: 'draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoi...@ietf.org'Cc: 'pce@ietf.org' ; pce-cha...@ietf.org Subject: Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-pce-exp-codepoints Hi there I am the document shepherd for this draft. Please find my review of the draft below. Many thanks for writing this draft. It looks in good shape overall. There are just a few clarifications I would like to make before we forward it to the IESG for publication. Cheers Jon Abstract This sentence about new sub-registries is misleading - the allocation policy for new sub-registries is decided by the drafts that create the sub-registries and does not have to be IETF Review. I propose: OLD IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Review. NEW IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. END Introduction OLD The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. NEW The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. END i.e. add reference to RFC 5440. The second paragraph is superfluous - I suggest deleting: Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. Please apply the same comments I made for the abstract to the following text: OLD IANA established a new top- level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Review as described in [RFC8126]. NEW IANA established a top- level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. END Suggested change for clarity: OLD With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. NEW Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. END Section 5 The following paragraph does not tell the whole story. A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, will reject the entire PCEP message and send a PCE error message with Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" as described in [RFC5440]. If the P flag is clear in the object header, then the PCE MAY ignore the object instead of generating this error message. Also, you do not discuss what a PCC would do on receipt of a PCUdp or PCInitiate containing an unrecognised experimental object - it is inconsistent that you don't cover these cases. (FWIW, RFC 8231 is a bit ambiguous about what a PCC should do about the PCUpd. Section 6.2 says that a PCErr should be sent, but then it refers to section 7.3.3, which says that a PCRpt should be sent. Hmmm.) Also: s/PCE error message/PCErr message/ Section 7 Nit: add comma after "accidentally" Appendix A I think the text in this Appendix could be clearer. Here is my suggestion. OLD Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus only on the essentials in the scope of this documents. For others, Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead. NEW Based on feedback from the PCE WG, it was decided to allocate an Experimental code point range only in the message, object and TLV sub-registries. The justification for this decision is that, if an experiment finds that it wants to use a new code point in another PCEP sub-registry, it can implement the same function using a new experimental object or TLV instead. END Other Please update reference draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce -> RFC 8231 Please update reference draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10 -> draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11 ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce