Hi Authors, I have completed my shepherd review. There are only a few comments and nits. Please fix them and we would be ready to ship this to our AD.
## Comments - Introduction, the last paragraph ```` OLD: This document extends the usage of the Vendor Information Object and the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV to Stateful PCE. The VENDOR-INFORMATION- TLV can be carried inside any of the new objects added in PCEP for Stateful PCE as per [RFC7470], this document extends the stateful PCEP messages to include the Vendor Information Object as well. NEW: The Vendor Information Object and the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV are also valuable in the Stateful PCE model. The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV can be included within any of the new objects introduced in PCEP for Stateful PCE as defined in [RFC7470]. This document extends stateful PCEP messages to incorporate the Vendor Information Object. END ```` - Add a new section 1.2 ```` 1.2. Use of RBNF The message formats in this document are illustrated using Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding, as specified in [RFC5511]. The use of RBNF is illustrative only and may elide certain important details; the normative specification of messages is found in the prose description. If there is any divergence between the RBNF and the prose, the prose is considered authoritative. ```` - I am unsure about this text in Section 4.6 - "Further, the mechanism described in this document can help the operator to request control of the LSPs at a particular PCE." Is it a copy-paste error when you borrowed the text from a different document? - I also suggest changing this text "Section 6.6 of [RFC7470] describes congestion mitigation methods for a PCC for Stateless PCEP messages" to "Section 6.6 of [RFC7470] highlights how the presence of additional vendor-specific information in PCEP messages may congest the operations and how to detect and handle it" - Section 7, I suggest this text, which we have been using in the recent RFCs - ```` OLD: As stated in [RFC6952], PCEP implementations SHOULD support the TCP- AO [RFC5925] and not use TCP MD5 because of TCP MD5's known vulnerabilities and weakness. PCEP also supports Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best current practices in [RFC9325]. NEW: As per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current practices in RFC 9325 [BCP195] (unless explicitly set aside in [RFC8253]). ```` ## Nits - s/traffic engineered/traffic-engineered/ - s/stateless Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)/stateless PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) messages/ - s/with [RFC8231] as base/with [RFC8231] as the base/ - s/update attributes of an LSP/update the attributes of an LSP/ - s/In addition, requirements and considerations/In addition, the requirements and considerations/ - s/The registrations procedures/The registration procedures/ Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
