Hi Dhruv, > On 2 Jul 2017, at 17:08, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for your review. Please see inline. > > On Sunday 02 July 2017 05:45 PM, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote: >> 3) Section 5 says “PCEP implementations SHOULD consider the additional >> security >> provided by Transport Layer Security (TLS) [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps].” >> >> Use of SHOULD says to me you expect the majority of implementations to >> implement I-D.ietf-pce-pceps. So should the reference to I-D.ietf-pce-pceps >> be >> normative? > > [Dhruv]:Hmm, you may be right. > It just that other documents have put this down as Informative usually. PCEPS > is also in publication process, so normative reference will most likely not > block progress. I am not sure if we should deviate in this document. Thoughts?
I don’t have a strong opinion, I point it out as something that struck me as a possible oversight. If the authors & ADs are happy for it to be an informative reference, that’s fine with me. >> 4) Section 6.5 - PCEP Objects. Should you specify the meaning of Object-Types >> 0, 1 & 2 for the END-POINTS object, like you do for the other objects in this >> section? > > [Dhruv]: END-POINTS is an existing object defined in RFC5440. This document > defines new object-types for the END-POINTS object. Thus I don't think there > is a reason to mention 0,1 & 2. Fair enough. Ben
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
