--- 1/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-09.txt	2019-08-31 03:13:41.010459204 -0700
+++ 2/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-10.txt	2019-08-31 03:13:41.058460415 -0700
@@ -1,24 +1,24 @@
 
 PCE Working Group                                           S. Litkowski
 Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
 Intended status: Standards Track                            S. Sivabalan
-Expires: February 17, 2020                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
+Expires: March 2, 2020                               Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                 C. Barth
                                                         Juniper Networks
                                                                  M. Negi
                                                      Huawei Technologies
-                                                         August 16, 2019
+                                                         August 30, 2019
 
 Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for LSP
                      Diversity Constraint Signaling
-                draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-09
+                draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-10
 
 Abstract
 
    This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate a group of
    Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation
    Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) with the purpose of
    computing diverse paths for those LSPs.  The proposed extension
    allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a PCE that a
    particular LSP belongs to a disjoint-group, thus the PCE knows that
    the LSPs in the same group need to be disjoint from each other.
@@ -31,21 +31,21 @@
    Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
    Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
    working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
    Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
 
    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
 
-   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 17, 2020.
+   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 2, 2020.
 
 Copyright Notice
 
    Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
    document authors.  All rights reserved.
 
    This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
    Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
    (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
    publication of this document.  Please review these documents
@@ -648,46 +648,47 @@
    implementation should aim to select a path that allows disjointness.
 
 5.6.  Disjointness Computation Issues
 
    There may be some cases where the PCE is not able to provide a set of
    disjoint paths for one or more LSPs in the association.
 
    When the T flag is set (Strict disjointness requested), if
    disjointness cannot be ensured for one or more LSPs, the PCE MUST
    reply to a Path Computation Request (PCReq) with a Path Computation
-   Reply (PCRep) message containing a NO-PATH object.  In case of other
-   PCEP message, the PCE MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type 26
+   Reply (PCRep) message containing a NO-PATH object.  In case of PCRpt
+   message, the PCE MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type 26
    "Association Error" and Error-Value 7 "Cannot join the association
    group".  Also, in case of network event leading to an impossible
    strict disjointness, the PCE MUST send a PCUpd message containing an
    empty ERO to the corresponding PCCs.  In addition to the empty ERO
    Object, the PCE MAY add the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV ([RFC5440]) in the LSP
    Object.
 
    This document adds new bits in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV:
 
       bit "TBD7": when set, the PCE indicates that it could not find a
       disjoint path for this LSP.
 
       bit "TBD8": when set, the PCE indicates that it does not support
       the requested disjointness computation.
 
    When the T flag is unset, the PCE is allowed to relax disjointness by
-   either applying a requested objective function (Section 5.4) if
-   specified.  Otherwise the PCE is allowed to reduce the required level
-   of disjointness (as it deems fit).  The actual level of disjointness
-   computed by the PCE can be reported through the DISJOINTNESS-STATUS-
-   TLV by setting the appropriate flags in the TLV.  While the
-   DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV defines the expected level of
-   disjointness required by configuration, the DISJOINTNESS-STATUS-TLV
-   defines the actual level of disjointness computed.
+   applying a requested objective function (Section 5.4) if specified.
+   Otherwise, if no objective function is specified, the PCE is allowed
+   to reduce the required level of disjointness as it deems fit.  The
+   actual level of disjointness computed by the PCE can be reported
+   through the DISJOINTNESS-STATUS-TLV by setting the appropriate flags
+   in the TLV.  While the DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV defines the
+   expected level of disjointness required by configuration, the
+   DISJOINTNESS-STATUS-TLV defines the actual level of disjointness
+   computed.
 
    There are some cases where the PCE may need to completely relax the
    disjointness constraint in order to provide a path to all the LSPs
    that are part of the association.  A mechanism that allows the PCE to
    fully relax a constraint is considered by the authors as more global
    to PCEP rather than linked to the disjointness use case.  As a
    consequence, it is considered as out of scope of the document.
 
    All LSPs in a particular disjoint group MUST use the same combination
    of T, S, N, L flags in the DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION-TLV.  If a PCEP