Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi Boris, Sorry for the late reply... 1.1) Yes, it's basically always going to be set to 1. There isn't expected to be any other values there in the future, this field is basically unused. 1.2) I've removed that sentence in version 15. I think the intent was that the PCC can have multiple loop

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12 Hi WG, The WGLC has ended. Thanks to everyone who contributed with review comments during this last call discussion. These are very helpful to gauge the consensus of the WG to move the draft forward towards publication. Authors

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi all,Sorry for being late, I fully support the adoption too. Some small comments for the better understanding:1) Section 4.1 Association parameters1.1) Association ID which should be set to 1, will it never be used and should be kept as '1" ? 1.2) This sentence sounds confusing, IMO:"If the PCC r

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi WG, The WGLC has ended. Thanks to everyone who contributed with review comments during this last call discussion. These are very helpful to gauge the consensus of the WG to move the draft forward towards publication. Authors, Thanks for posting -13. Is there a need for another version update

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi Dhruv & WG, I have read the latest version and support WG LC. Best Regards, Ran Original From: DhruvDhody To: pce@ietf.org ; Cc: pce-chairs ;draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org ; Date: 2024年01月08日 18:29 Subject: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12 _

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi WG, I have read the document and I support the progression to RFC. Best regards, Gao xing. From: Dhruv Dhody Date: 2024-01-08 18:28 To: pce@ietf.org CC: pce-chairs; draft-ietf-pce

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

...@ietf.org; mkold...@proton.me Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12 Hi Cheng, Thanks for your review! Comments inline with . Thanks, Mike. From: Cheng Li mailto:c.l=40huawei@dmarc.ietf.org>> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 11:09 AM To: Dhruv

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

ing-policy...@ietf.org ; Cc: pce@ietf.org ;pce-cha...@ietf.org ;mkold...@proton.me ; Date: 2024年01月17日 00:47 Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12 Hi Quan, Thanks for your review! Comments inline with . Thanks, Mike. From: Pce On Behalf Of xiong.q...@zte.co

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi Cheng, Thanks for your review! Comments inline with . Thanks, Mike. From: Cheng Li Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 11:09 AM To: Dhruv Dhody ; pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12 Hi PCE WG, Authors, I have reviewed the latest version in details and I feel this draft is good written and I support the progression to RFC. And I have two minor suggestions. A，I noticed the [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] and [I

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

org>; Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12 Hi Samuel, Thanks for the feedback! Comments inline with . Thanks, Mike. From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) mailto:ssi...@cisco.com>> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 4:25 AM

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi Gyan, Thanks for your review! Comments inline with . Thanks, Mike. From: Gyan Mishra Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 1:31 AM To: Dhruv Dhody Cc: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs Subject: Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi Haomian, Thanks for your review! Comments inline with . Thanks, Mike. From: Zhenghaomian Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 10:57 PM To: Dhruv Dhody ; pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi WG, I read the document and support the WGLC. However, I also have some minor comments below. 1. Abstract A Segment Routing (SR) Policy [RFC9256] is a non-empty set of SR Candidate Paths, that share the same tuple. 1.Nits: s/that/which. 2.share the

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi PCE WG, Authors,I have reviewed the latest version in details and I feel this draft is good written and I support the progression to RFC. And I have two minor suggestions. A，I noticed the [I-D.ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy] and [I-D.ietf-pce-multipath] are in the Normative References. I a

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Sidor (ssidor) ; draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12 Hi Samuel, Thanks for the feedback! Comments inline with . Thanks, Mike. From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) mailto:ssi

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

I support publication. I have reviewed v12 and have a few minor comments. At the end of the abstract section you could say forwarding planes of SR instead of dataplane. As the data planes of SR would be MPLS and IPv6. Old The mechanism is applicable to all data planes of SR (MPLS, SRv6, etc.).

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi WG, I read the document and think it’s in good shape. Two minor comments as follow: 1. In section 4.2 there is a new Error-Value TBD6 “Missing Mandatory TLV” (which is also inconsistent with the name in section 6.3), however for existing Error-Value under Error-Type “Mandatory Object M

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi Mike, Using MUST sounds good to me to keep the interop behavior consistent. Agreed, especially since there may be an inability to resolve the SID destination (ex: bsid, interdomain etc..) that it’s likely best to just force the resolution to rely on Endpoint from SRPA. Thanks Andrew From:

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12 Hi Everyone, I read through the document and have the following comments. 1. In Abstract, there are three references (one [RFC9256 ], two [RFC8664]s). It seems better to remove these references by rephrasing. Sure, let me see if I can avoid references

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi Samuel, Thanks for the feedback! Comments inline with . Thanks, Mike. From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2024 4:25 AM To: draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; pce@ietf.org; Dhruv Dhody Subject: RE: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi Andrew, Thanks for the feedback! Comments inline with . Thanks, Mike. From: Andrew Stone (Nokia) Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 2:05 PM To: Dhruv Dhody ; pce@ietf.org Cc: pce-chairs ; draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-poli

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi Everyone, I read through the document and have the following comments. 1. In Abstract, there are three references (one [RFC9256 ], two [RFC8664]s). It seems better to remove these references by rephrasing. 2. It seems that an SR Policy has one identifier which consists of Headend, colo

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi all, Thanks a lot, to authors for doing this work. It is really important for supporting SR policies in PCEP. I support progress of this document to RFC. A few minor comments: * For TLVs in association section, there is explicitly mentioned that those are “single instance” TLVs (single

Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12

Hi PCE WG, Authors, I’ve read the latest version and it was a straight forward read and looks to be in good shape. In addition, comments I had during original adoption were also all addressed. I support progression of the document. Some minor comments/feedback below. Thanks Andrew - Termino