Hi Bo, Thanks for your review! Please see inline with Quan>>. Quan <<Original From: BoWuviaDatatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx <ops-dir@xxxxxxxx>; Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags.all@xxxxxxxx>;last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>;pce@xxxxxxxx <pce@xxxxxxxx>; Date: 2022年10月11日 21:31 Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-05 Reviewer: Bo Wu Review result: Has Nits I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. The draft defines the PCE LSP object flag extension. The original 12 bits flags have been allocated, but a new individual draft requires new flags. In summary, the document is ready, with only small issues. Major issues: Minor issues: Introduction: The bits from 1 to 3 are assigned in [RFC8623] for Explicit Route Object (ERO)-compression, fragmentation and Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) respectively. [Bo Wu] Here uses ERO object. But the title and abstract say Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension, contradict? Quan>>The description of the two objects do not contradict. The flag extension is carried in LSP Object. And one bit of this flag is assigned and named ERO-compression flag. And if the ERO-compression flag is set to 1, it indicates the route is in compressed format as per [RFC8623]. 5. Backward Compatibility The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV defined in this document does not introduce any interoperability issues. [Bo Wu] I feel there are interoperability issues introduced, correct? But the issue will be resolved by the future use? Quan>>I think the TLV itself does not introduce any interoperability issues and the use of flag may introduce interoperability issues which may be resolved and considered by the future use. Maybe we should add this sentence in draft? Nits/editorial comments: Introduction: OLD The bit value 4 is assigned in [RFC8281] for create for PCE-Initiated LSPs. New The bit value 4 is assigned in [RFC8281] for creation and deletion for PCE-Initiated LSPs. Quan>>Thanks, will revise it in the new version. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
