Thanks Mahesh for the review comments. We have updated the work in progress copy that addresses your comments.
Thanks, Rakesh On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 6:07 PM Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path-24: 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-sr-bidir-path/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 7, paragraph 1 > > A new Association Type for the Association object, 'Bidirectional SR > > LSP Association' is introduced in this document. Additional security > > considerations related to LSP associations due to a malicious PCEP > > speaker are described in [RFC8697] and apply to this Association > > Type. Hence, securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer > > Security (TLS) [RFC8253] as per the recommendations and best current > > practices in [RFC9325]. > > The last sentence sounds incomplete. Maybe: > > "Hence, securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS) > [RFC8253] > as per the recommendations and best current practices in [RFC9325] is > RECOMMENDED." > > The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. > > Document references draft-ietf-pce-multipath-19, but -20 is the latest > available revision. > > Section 2, paragraph 4 > > or by a PCC as described in the sub-sections below for the case when > there a > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This word is normally spelled as one. > > Section 3.2, paragraph 4 > > o nodes in a network) can be associated together by using the > association gro > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This phrase is redundant. Consider writing "associated". > > Section 4.1, paragraph 3 > > nal SR LSPs are summarized in the sub-sections below. 5.1. PLSP-ID Usage > As p > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This word is normally spelled as one. > > Section 8.3, paragraph 1 > > EPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation > Ele > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use > simply > "Secure Transport". > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
