[Pce] Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-multipath-26: (with COMMENT)

[Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-multipath-26: 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/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-multipath/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I read Section 2.2: Is "Splitting of Requested Bandwidth" as an example, but I
didn't see any text saying so.

When I read "Paths within a single LSP may have significantly different
properties, such as MTU, latency, and available bandwidth." I think this is
true, but it does not lend weight to the problems this can follow any change of
path that changes the path characteristics, and in particular frequent changes
are disruptive - I'd expected this document to caution against frequent
re-mapping of the forwarding plane. e.g., although PMTUD/DPLPMTUD could help
for instance when there is a change of the effective PMTU, it is not without
impact on the application/user; there is also impact on the congestion control,
etc.