Reviewer: Xiao Min Review result: Ready Summary: I have been asked to review this draft on behalf of the OPS directorate. I think this document is READY.
Also, I have a few editorial comments for the authors to consider. Section 1 & 3, it appears "PCEP LSP" or "PCEP LSPs" is not used in other PCE documents, so suggest to do s/PCEP LSP/LSP and s/PCEP LSPs/LSPs. Section 2, s/candidate paths belonging to the SR Policy/candidate paths belonging to the same SR Policy. Section 5.2, Figure 7, how long is the "Priority" field? 8 bits or 9 bits? I believe it's 8 bits. Section 5.3, Figure 8, how long is the "ENLP" field? I believe it's 8 bits. In Section 3.2 of RFC 8697 it says "PCEP extensions that define a new Association Type should clarify the relationship between the SVEC object and the Association Type, if any", so some clarification text may be added. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
