Thank you Samuel for considering my comments! The changes you proposed are ok for me.
Regards, Giuseppe From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 2:25 PM To: Giuseppe Fioccola <[email protected]>; Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19 (Ends 2026-02-24) Hi Giuseppe, Thanks for those comments. Please see inline <S>. Regards, Samuel From: Giuseppe Fioccola <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Friday, 20 February 2026 at 11:22 To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19 (Ends 2026-02-24) Hi All, I have read the last version of the draft and I support its progress. However, I have few suggestions for the authors: - I would change the title of Section 2 to "Use cases" instead of "Motivation". <S> In most of PCEP RFCs, we are using "Motivation" section even if it is describing usecases (see for example RFC8231, RFC8281, RFC9256,...), so I would prefer to keep it called that way for consistency reasons. - In section 3.3, I suggest to add a reference to section 4.3 where the usage of MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is mentioned. Likewise, in section 3.4, I would add a reference to section 4.4 where the usage of MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is also cited. <S> I'll add those references. - For completeness, you can consider to add a new subsection (4.5) to further specify the usage of MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV, as for the other TLVs in sections 4.3 and 4.4. <S> Sure, I'll add section 4.5 and I'll move some content from existing section 3.5. - In section 4.1.1, it is not clear how the example of the last paragraph is related to the previous text. Maybe a revision is needed to clarify and improve readability. <S> Italo as part of Opsdir review raised same comment. Moved section with example to related text. - I would explain the acronym PLSP in section 4.3 or in the Terminology section. <S> Sure, I can do that. - The entire section 6 includes examples which could also be moved to an Appendix. <S> I don't have strong opinion here. I'm fine with moving them to Appendix. Regards, Giuseppe -----Original Message----- From: Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 6:26 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19 (Ends 2026-02-24) This message starts a WG Last Call for: draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19 This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-02-24 Abstract: Certain traffic engineering path computation problems require solutions that consist of multiple traffic paths that together form a solution. However, current PCEP extensions can only return a single traffic path, which cannot meet the requirements. This document defines mechanisms to encode multiple paths for a single set of objectives and constraints. This allows encoding of multiple Segment Lists per Candidate Path within a Segment Routing Policy. The new Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) mechanisms are designed to be generic, which allows for future re-use outside of SR Policy. The new PCEP mechanisms are applicable to both stateless and stateful PCEP. Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 and RFC 8281 to allow encoding of multiple Segment Lists in PCEP. Please indicate your support or concern for this draft on the mailing list. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and that it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-multipath/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
