Thanks Marina,
Cutting down to just two points.
* 4.1 – I don’t so understand what is contradict
I originally wrote:
4.1 has:
The S-BFD parameters are only meant to be used for SR LSPs and with
PCEP peers which advertise SR capability.
This seems to contradict:
- The Abstract which says:
The mechanism proposed in this document is
applicable to all path setup types.
- Section 4.1, itself, which says:
Defining S-BFD parameters via PCEP MAY be also used together with a
PCE as a Central Controller
The first 4.1 quote appears to say that the mechanisms are only for SR LSPs,
but the Abstract says for “all path setup types”.
On re-reading, I think the second quote is not actually a contradiction (if the
central controller is used for SR LSPs)
* I don't like that you use "PCEP peer" in 4.2. If the PCC sends the
S-BFD info to the PCE, is the PCE able to use S-BFD on the path? I don't think
so. Thus, you should reword these references in terms of "PCE" and "PCC" to
make clear which is which - MF: S-BFD is in context of LSP
The problem I am trying to convey is that “PCEP peer” does not distinguish
between PCC and PCE. But the meaning, I think, is only valid if the information
is sent from PCE to PCC.
* XML issues are corrected, idnits – I always do it
Thanks. I only mentioned idnits because the -04 draft has three warnings.
Regards,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
