Hi Roni, Thanks for your comments. See inline... > -----Original Message----- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roni Even > Sent: 13 August 2017 19:18 > To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis.all@xxxxxxxx; pce@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-03 > > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review > Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for > the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call > comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2017-08-13 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-24 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-31 > > Summary: The document is ready for publication as standard track RFC > > I read all the document and also did a compare with RFC6006 to look at the > changes. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. In section 4.2 I am not sure why is this sentence there, is it for the > current yang document or for a future one. Why have it at all?-"The PCEP > YANG module [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] can be extended to also include the > P2MP related parameters." > [[Dhruv Dhody]] The text around MIB existed from RFC6006. Since then the focus has shifted to Yang. We wanted to keep this text about Yang to reflect that. How about we reword to - The PCEP YANG model is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. The YANG models can be augmented to also include the P2MP related parameters. Thanks again for your review. Regards, Dhruv Working Copy - https://github.com/dhruvdhody-huawei/ietf/blob/master/draft-ietf-pce-rfc6006bis-04.txt > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce