Hi Mirja,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind
> Sent: 25 August 2017 19:19
> To: The IESG <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-
> rfc6006bis-03: (with COMMENT)
>
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I could be helpful, also for implementors to update their code, to more
> explicitly spell out what the changes are (in the intro) instead of just
> listing the errata numbers.
>
>
[[Dhruv Dhody]] I have updated the Appendix, and added a reference in the
Introduction.
Appendix A. Summary of the all Changes from RFC 6006
o Updated the text to use the term "PCC" instead of "user" while
describing the encoding rules in section 3.10.
o Updated the example in figure 7 to explicitly include the RP
object.
o Corrected the description of F-bit in the RP object in section
3.13, as per the errata ID 3836.
o Corrected the description of fragmentation procedure for the
response in section 3.13.2, as per the errata ID 3819.
o Corrected the Error-Type in section 3.15 for fragmentation, as per
the errata ID 3830.
o Updated the references for OSPF Router Information Link State
Advertisement (LSA) [RFC7770] and PCEP-MIB [RFC7420].
o Add updated information and references for PCEP YANG [I-D.ietf-pce-
pcep-yang] and PCEPS [I-D.ietf-pce-pceps].
o Updated IANA considerations to mark code-point 0 as reserved for
the object type defined in this document, as per the errata ID 4956.
IANA references are also updated to point to this document.
Appendix A.1 RBNF Changes from RFC 6006
o Update to RBNF for Request message format:
* Update to the request message to allow for the bundling of
multiple path computation requests within a single Path
Computation Request (PCReq) message.
* Addition of <svec-list> in PCReq message. This object was missed
in [RFC6006].
* Addition of BNC object in PCReq message. This object is required
to support P2MP. It shares the same format as Include Route Object
(IRO) but it is a different object.
* Update to the <RRO-List> format, to also allow Secondary Record
Route object (SRRO). This object was missed in [RFC6006].
* Removed the BANDWIDTH Object followed by Record Route Object
(RRO) from <RRO-List>. As BANDWIDTH object doesn't need to follow
for each RRO in the <RRO-List>, there already exist BANDWIDTH
object follow <RRO-List> and is backward compatible with
[RFC5440].
* Update to the <end-point-rro-pair-list>, to allow optional
BANDWIDTH object only if <RRO-List> is included.
* Errata ID: 4867
o Update the RBNF for Reply message format:
* Update to the reply message to allow for bundling of multiple
path computation replies within a single Path Computation Reply
(PCRep) message.
* Addition of the UNREACH-DESTINATION in PCRep message. This
object was missed in [RFC6006].
* Errata ID: 4868
Hope this works?
Thanks for your review.
Regards,
Dhruv
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
