Subject: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 06:18:24 -0700

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

thanks for this Document. I have a couple of comments/suggestions:

3.2.1
   If the PCE understands the H-PCE path computation request but did not
   advertise its H-PCE capability, it MUST send a PCErr message with
   Error-Type=TBD8 ("H-PCE error") and Error-Value=1 ("Parent PCE
   Capability not advertised").
I believe the description of the error is incorrect and should be: "H-PCE Capability not advertised"

3.6.  SVEC Object
   o  O (Domain diverse) bit - TBD14
You call it the O bit here but not in the IANA registry. I guess the two should be consistent.

In IANA section:
s/H-PCE-FLAGS/H-PCE-FLAG/ (twice)
s/assign three new/assign four new/

typos
s/suitible /suitable/
s/Aditionally/Additionally/