Roni, thanks for your review. I raised your point about the missing OPEN (error) case in my DISCUSS ballot. One comment below. > On Apr 14, 2019, at 6:42 AM, Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Almost Ready > > 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-hierarchy-extensions-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2019-04-14 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-15 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > 1. In section 1.1 last bullet does it mean that you MUST NOT use H-PCEP on the > internet? This text is the same as what appears in RFC 7399 and I think it captures the intent clearly enough (although happy to see the authors answer your question). Thanks, Alissa > > 2. In section 3.2.1 or section 4.1 if the originator sends PCC or PCE sends an > open with P flag =0 can the response open be sent with a P flag =1 and if yes > what should be the action of the originator. I did not see any text about this > case. > > Nits/editorial comments: > 1. in section 1 "achild" should be " a child" > 2. Section 2.4 repeat some of the text from RFC6805 1.3.2.2 but using > different sentence structure. Is there a reason to change the wording. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
