Subject: Re: [Pce] Chair's Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-11

From: Robert Varga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:24:36 +0200

On 05/03/2016 12:33 PM, Julien Meuric wrote:
> Hi Ina,

Hello Ina, Julien,

> 
> The status is the following:
> - There used to be a couple of mismatches between Robert's comments and
> the wording of the I-D: if he is fine with the latest update, we are good;

There were three points outstanding:
- empty PCUpd with D=1, I think current text is sufficient
- SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME in SRP, the authors have agreed to remove it
- PCNtf vs. PCErr when PCE resource limits are hit. I think current text
is fine.

So in this regard I think we are go.

> - A parallel thread about stateless PCE has grown up to tackle an issue
> to be addressed as a comment on this I-D: it is now useful to have the
> authors joining that part of the discussion to reach a consensus on the
> resolution
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/_ih3NcDK2_iy8xSHcquzm-q_2bs);

I will re-read the thread and reply there.

> - With PCEPS I-D getting close to IANA, Jon refreshed the codepoint
> early allocation proposal not so long ago
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Jg2f8AGa9ZpVZup13YWzTHwkUD8):
> a feedback of stateful I-Ds' authors on that action would be welcome.

Already sent a reply.

Thanks,
Robert