Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-10 

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. 

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir 

Document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-10 
Reviewer: Mach Chen
Review Date: 17 Nov. 2025
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.

Comments:
1. The draft is well-written and easy to read, thanks!
2. Regarding the codepoints requested in the document, are there any early allocation requests for those codepoints approved? If so, it should be mentioned in the document; otherwise, those codepoints should be specified as TBD1, TBD2, ...., avoid potential codepoint squatting.

Nits:
1. Section 1 Introduction, paragraph 3, 
The description of SR Policy and SR candidate path is not accuracy, for example, an SR policy in not just a set of candidate paths, according to RFC926, an SR policy is one or a set of candidate paths. The similar issue for SR candidate path, which is represented by a segment list or a set of segment list.... 

Please refine the wording. 

2. Section 3.3
s/This document defines new TLV/ This document defines a new TLV...
s/for delegated LSP/for a delegated LSP
s/The TLV is optional/The PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV optional

3. Section 4.1
s/PCC MAY set.../A PCC MAY set...
s/O flag cleared or LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV .../The O flag cleared or the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV....
last paragraph, s/Adjacency SIDs MAY be used/Adjacency SIDs SHOULD be used.

4. Section 4.2
s/PCC MAY set.../A PCC MAY set...
s/If TLV is not included,/If the PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV is not included,
OLD:
The PCE MUST NOT recompute the path in response to various
      triggers if the current path remains valid and meets all
      constraints (E.g. topology updates, periodic reoptimization
      timers, or changes in the state of other LSPs).
New:

The PCE MUST NOT recompute the path in response to various
      triggers (E.g. topology updates, periodic reoptimization
      timers, or changes in the state of other LSPs) if the current path remains valid and meets all
      constraints.

s/CLI/Command Line Interface (CLI)

"TLV MAY be included in PCInitiate and PCUpd messages to indicate,
   which triggers will be disabled on the PCE.  PCC MUST reflect flag
   values in PCRpt messages to forward the requirement to other PCEs in
   the network."

The above text seems incomplete, hard to parse, please refine the wording.

Last paragraph,

OLD:
A PCC that receives a PCUpd message with a modified path for an LSP,
   where such an update is blocked by flags in the PATH-RECOMPUTATION
   TLV (e.g., the F flag is set), it MUST reject the update and maintain
   the existing path for the LSP.

NEW:
When a PCC receives a PCUpd message with a modified path for an LSP,
   where such an update is blocked by flags in the PATH-RECOMPUTATION
   TLV (e.g., the F flag is set), it MUST reject the update and maintain
   the existing path for the LSP.


Best regards,
Mach