[Pce] Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-23: (with COMMENT)

[Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-23: 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-segment-routing-ipv6/



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

Thanks for working on this document. I am not an expert in PCEP and its related
drafts, but as I understand it, this document is defining an extension for SRv6
and not SR-MPLS. Therefore, I am confused by this long paragraph in the
Introduction section that delves into how SR-MPLS works. To quote:

   [RFC8231] specifies extensions to PCEP that allow a stateful PCE to
   compute and recommend network paths in compliance with [RFC4657] and
   defines objects and TLVs for MPLS-TE LSPs.  Stateful PCEP extensions
   provide synchronization of LSP state between a PCC and a PCE or
   between a pair of PCEs, delegation of LSP control, reporting of LSP
   state from a PCC to a PCE, controlling the setup and path routing of
   an LSP from a PCE to a PCC.  Stateful PCEP extensions are intended
   for an operational model in which LSPs are configured on the PCC, and
   control over them is delegated to the PCE.

If there is something this paragraph conveys applies to SRv6, it is not
apparent in the next paragraph. In anything, the next paragraph on how this
would work in SRv6 was clear in itself, without needing this paragraph.