Hi PCE WG and authors,
Thanks for your hard work. I read this document and support the WG LC.
And It would be much better if the following two comments can be addressed.
1,in section 3.3, the reference may be indicated when LSP-DB-VERSION TLV is
first mentioned.
2,in section 6, a new PCEP-PATH-VECTOR TLV was proposed in this ducument, but
it seems to be seperate from the other sections ( It is assumed to be used to
track information about the propagation of the messages). It would be better to
clarify the relationship with the document theme and merge it to the section 3
which specifies the procedures and extensions of PCEP.
Best Regards,
Quan
<Hi WG,
<This email marks the start of a 3-week working group last call for
<draft-ietf-pce-state-sync-11, taking into account the Chinese New Year
<holiday during this
period.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-state-sync/Please
indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed
<to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If
<you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and
<it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and
<nits are most welcome.
<The WG LC will end on Friday 14th Feb 2025.
<*A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the
<last-call/adoption.*
<Thanks,
<Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
