Hi WG, I have reviewed the document and there is no objection for WG adoption. Please find some editing comments for authors' reference as below.
Best Xuesong --- 1. Introduction ...This document proposes a set of extensions for PCEP to configure the ELP information for SR- MPLS networks. " "ELP information" is mentioned here without clear definition (although it is implied in the context)and it is also used in section 4 about PCEP extensions. Maybe it could be considered to add a definition firstly. Or if it has been defined in other document, adding a reference will be helpful. 3. Entropy Labels in SR-MPLS Scenario with PCE ... As described in [RFC8662] section 7, the ERLD value is important for inserting ELI/EL and the ingress node need to evaluate the minimum ERLD value along the node segment path. But it will add complexity in the ELI/EL insertion process. Moreover, the ingress node cannot find the minimum ERLD along the path and does not support the computation of the minimum ERLD especially in inter-domain scenarios. It seems that the proposals of this document addresses the issues for both inter-domain and intra-domain scenarios, especially for inter-domain. It that is the case, I suggest to point this out and separate these 2 scenarios into 2 paragraphs. 5. Operations The SR path is initiated by PCE or PCC with PCReq, PCInitiated or PCUpd messages and the E bit is set to 1 in LSP object to request the ELP configuration. The SR-TE path being received by PCC with SR-ERO segment list, for example, <S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6>, especially S3 and S6 with E-flag set. It indicates that two <ELI, EL> pairs MUST be inserted into the label stack of the SR-TE forwarding entry, respectively after the label for S3 and label for S6. With EL information, the label stack for SR-MPLS would be <label1, label2, label3, ELI, EL, label4, label5, label6, ELI, EL>. I think the example here is very clear to explain how the extensions work, maybe it could be considered to modify the title of this section to "operational example" directly. From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2024 12:49 AM To: pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>; draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-posit...@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10 Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position/ Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. Please respond by Monday 12th Feb 2024. Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks! Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
