 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear all, We submitted a new
version of the draft some months ago and received no feedback by now althought
we integrated most of the comments received previously. We would like also the
draft ot be considered for WG adoption so please give a look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouyllau-pce-enhanced-errors-03
and provide us feedback on the specific concerns that was addressed by: - section 4: Error-type
and Notification-type are replaced by TLVs : a TLV to indicate the
criticity level of errors, a TLV to indicate the type of notification
(request-specific or not), a TLV to specify if the message must be propagate or
not. The propagation of critical errors that consequently close the PCEP
session is still feasible (we aim to cover all the behaviors) but optional by
the introduction of a medium level of criticity. - section 5.3: specify
the rules of TLV usages with the error and notification types defined in RFC
5440, 5441, 5455, 5521, 5557, 5886 and 6006. - section 6: Error and
notification scenarios have been reformulated and focus on a sub-set of
behaviors. BR Helia Pouyllau |