.|...:
>||
> ..||...
> : || :
> : XY :
> : :
> :.:
>
>ABXYF is a lower cost path, but invokes an extra domain. How is this
>resolved?
>
> 2. The structure of the OF object allows TLVs to be included to qualify
>the OF (more example metrics). Now if you are allowing additional OFs
>to be present in an OF-list TLV, there is a question about how you
>carry additional TLVs for those TLVs (understanding that you may have
>to tightly bind the additional TLVs to one OF and not to another).
>
> 3. As you note, 5541 indicates that only one OF can be present. This is
>(presumably?) to avoid conflicting or contradictory OFs. Now that you
>allow two OFs to be present you need to say something to stop the
>presence of two competing (pre-existing) OFs. You could (probably?)
>say that only H-PCE OFs may be present in one place, and only non-H-
>PCE OFs in the other place.
>
> 4. Had you considered using multiple OF objects?
>
> ---
>
> 3.4
>
> Does the domain count include the source and destination domains? Does
> it count a domain twice if the domain is re-entered?
>
> ---
>
> 3.4
>
> The two paragraphs about the B-flag, don't add anything beyond 5440, do
> they?
>
> ---
>
> 3.5
>
> s/proposes/defines/
>
> ---
>
> 4.1 has
>
>When a specific child PCE sends a PCReq to a peer PCE that requires
> parental activity and the peer PCE does not want to act as the parent
>for it, the peer PCE should send a PCErr message to the child PCE and
>specify the error-type=TBD (H-PCE error) and error-value=2 (parent
>PCE capability cannot be provided) in the PCEP-ERROR object.
>
> while 7.7 has
>
> Error-value=2 Parent PCE
> Capability not supported
>
> The name in 7.7 may be closer to the "does not want" idea in 4.1.
>
> ---
>
> 4.2. Procedure to obtain Domain Sequence
>
> s/obtain/Obtain/
>
> It would be good to clarify whether the sequence of domains has been
> verified to provide a path. The difference lies in whether the parent
> PCE only looks at the domain interconnection, or consults the child
> PCEs.
>
> ---
>
> 7.3
>
> You need to specify the IANA allocation policy
>
> ---
>
> 7.9
> s/TBD13/TBD12/
>
> ---
>
> 8.
> Any reason why you mention TCP-AO without a reference to 5926
>
> ---
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
> > Sent: 06 September 2018 16:32
> > To: pce@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This message initiates a 2-week WG last call for
> > draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-05. Please review and share your
> > feedback on the PCE mailing list. This LC will end on Thursday
> > September, 20.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jon & Julien
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
