Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-14: 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-stateful-hpce/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for addressing my Discuss point! I would consider including the conclusion from our discussion about what would happen if a PCEP speaker does not support stateful H-PCE but the peer assumes it does, perhaps in an operational considerations section, but this does not rise to a Discuss-level point. For convenience, this was discussed as: % I further did a mental exercise for PCC -> C-PCE -> P-PCE and assumed % all support stateful and H-PCE extension but what happens when any % PCEP speaker does not support stateful H-PCE but the peer assumes that % it does. On further PCEP message exchange, the messages may not get % further propagated and thus at worse would not lead to the stateful % H-PCE based 'parent' control of the LSP. This is something any peer % should be prepared for anyways. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
