Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-14: Discuss
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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Section 5.2 5.2. Information and Data Models An implementation SHOULD allow an operator to view the PCEP peer capability defined in this document. Section 4.1 and 4.1.1 of [RFC9826] should be extended to include that capability for PCEP peer. Section 4.2 of [RFC9826] module SHOULD be extended to add notification for blocked path modification that satisfies specified constraints if path modification is blocked using the PATH- MODIFICATION TLV. -- Per “Section 4.1 and 4.1.1 of [RFC9826] should be extended to include that capability for PCEP peer”, who is this guidance for? What does it mean to say that a given section of an RFC “should be extended”? Is this extended the model in RFC9826? -- Per “Section 4.2 of [RFC9826] module SHOULD be extended to add notification for blocked path modification that satisfies specified constraints if path modification is blocked using the PATH-MODIFICATION TLV”, same questions. Additionally, this text says the "module SHOULD be extended", upper case "SHOULD", does that mean anything different than the lower case in the previous sentence? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Section 5.4 A PCE implementation SHOULD notify the operator in case of blocked path modification for an LSP that no longer satisfies specified constraints. It SHOULD also allow the operator to view LSPs on the PCE that does not satisfy specified constraints. Is there some interoperable way that the operator should be notified? Is there some interoperable way about how an operator should “view LSPs”? _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
