Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-09: Discuss
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-pcep-color/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Abstract", paragraph 0 > Color is a 32-bit numerical attribute that is used to associate a > Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent or objective > (e.g., low latency). This document specifies extensions to Path > Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute. Thanks first of all to Adrian for doing the OPSDIR review. As John mentions in his response to the review, Adrian's comments are substantive and they should be acknowledged and addressed. The authors have responded, but I would like to see that discussion reach a conclusion. For that reason, I am holding a DISCUSS on the document. Specifically, there was a comment from Adrian about the Manageability Considerations section. The authors have promised to bring it in after a discussion. However, that section does not appear in version -09 of the document, the version I am reviewing. I was also piqued by the comment from the authors that "Given that the document has reached this stage, it is safe to assume that there was consensus in the WG to use this TLV. AFAIK there was no discussion or debate during the WG process on whether the draft could have used an alternative encoding mechanism." If the discussion never happened, how can we claim that there was consensus in the WG? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. Section 1, paragraph 2 > ibute tagged with TE paths that are setup using RSVP-TE ([RFC8408]) or Segmen > ^^^^^ The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one. Section 1, paragraph 2 > lor attribute is when an SR path is setup using the extensions defined in [I- > ^^^^^ The verb "set up" is spelled as two words. The noun "setup" is spelled as one. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
