Hi WG,
I think this document is useful and it helps me to understand the aspects of
PCEP database.
I support the adoption as an informational I-D. But I suggest to fix the
following problems before adoption.
1,When I read this document, I found it a little hard to understand with the
editorial
Hi Tom, PCE WG
Thank you for your comments and review:
* Regarding authors - yes, agreed something to sort out. It was previously
5 but I hopped on to help being editor on it. One name will eventually need to
drop
* Agreed, we need to update the text to be impersonal and remove the "we
Hi Quan,
Thank you for your support and review. Will include all of your notes and
suggestions when doing the next iteration.
Fair point about the potential conflict in sentencing. I believe the intent was
to help distinguish the objects a bit more since the term 'LSP' is used in
different con
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your clarification! It is much better for understanding.
It would be better to add your explanation into the section 4.1 and remove the
sentence "A Tunnel is identified by PLSP-ID".
And from my veiw, the LSPs and Tunnels are all RSVP-signaled objects. But in
PCEP-sepcific
