Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I support John's DISCUSS on the document. I also noticed that Shephard review was done more than 2 years ago, but the document has gone through several updates since then. Does it need a refresh? Section 4, paragraph 0 > All manageability requirements and considerations listed in > [RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to PCEP protocol > extensions defined in this document. In addition, the requirements > and considerations listed in this section apply. It is good to see a separate manageability consideration section in the document. Section 4.2, paragraph 1 > The PCEP YANG module is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. Any > standard YANG module will not include details of vendor-specific > information. If what is being added is a vendor-info-list and a TLV, can that not be modeled in a standard way? I understand the content is vendor-specific, but how is the format of vendor-info-list and TLV vendor-specific? _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
