Hi Samuel,
Thank you for the prompt response.
I confirm that all my comments have been addressed by your explanation and
proposed changes.
Cheers,
Xiao Min
Original
From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <ssi...@cisco.com>
To: 肖敏10093570;
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp....@ietf.org
<draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp....@ietf.org>;ops-...@ietf.org
<ops-...@ietf.org>;last-c...@ietf.org <last-c...@ietf.org>;pce@ietf.org
<pce@ietf.org>;
Date: 2025年03月24日 19:17
Subject: RE: Opsdir telechat review of
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-22
Thanks a lot Xiao for your review.
Please find updated version attached based on your comments (and based on new
registry already created in spring "SR Policy Protocol Origin" by
I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy, so our IANA section for that field is not needed
anymore).
For interaction between SVEC and SRPA association type - there is no new
relationship (both can coexist), so this case does not belong into "if any"
part of that statement same way like for example RFC 9005 (introducing Policy
association type), RFC 9059 (introducing bidirectional association) or RFC 9358
(VN association type).
Thanks,
Samuel
-----Original Message-----
From: Xiao Min via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 3:44 AM
To: ops-...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp....@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;
pce@ietf.org
Subject: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-22
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
