Hi Deb, On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 4:19 PM Deb Cooley via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-23: No Objection > > 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-segment-routing-policy-cp/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks to Joe Salowey for his secdir reviews. > > One very small comment: > > Abstract, para 2: 'bring up'? what does this mean? Are we bringing up > protocols, like we raise children? Or does it mean something else? > > > Dhruv: I agree that phrasing needs to change especially since we don't use it in the body of the I-D. I suggest - OLD: Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow stateful bring up of an SR Label Switched Path (LSP), without using the path computation request and reply messages. NEW: Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow the set up of an SR Label Switched Path (LSP) in the stateful PCE model, without using the path computation request and reply messages. END Thanks! Dhruv (as Document Shepherd) > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
