Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-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-pce-initiated-lsp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) I'm wondering why this spec is not part of I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce as it is also not published yet...? 2) I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations should also be a normative references, given a flag is used in section 4.1 and a TLV is used in section 5.3.2 that are defined in that draft. 3) sec 5.4: "A PLSP-ID of zero removes all LSPs that were initiated by the PCE." and "If the PLSP-ID specified in the PCInitiate message was not created by a PCE.." -> This means that the PCC must remember which LSP was created by which PCE at instantiation time. This could be stated more explicitly. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
