[Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)

Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 30 September 2019 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5D80120142; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 02:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request@ietf.org, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan <hari@netflix.com>, pce-chairs@ietf.org, hari@netflix.com, pce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.103.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <156983718180.546.10162334928586461765.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 02:53:01 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/6cf-dS39T5Kqu_Ux33iyuPqkPXw>
Subject: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:53:02 -0000

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: 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-lsp-control-request/



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

Hi,

thank you for this document.
This document indicates:
"...MUST NOT trigger the error condition for unknown PLSP-ID in an LSP update
request as per [RFC8231] ...". "...MUST NOT trigger the error handling as
specified in [RFC8231] ...".

Yet, it also says:
The procedures for granting and relinquishing control of the LSPs are specified
in accordance with the specification [RFC8231].

So
1/ it seems to me that the latter sentence, considering the first two, is not
strictly correct. 2/ the rationale is well described, so I'm fine with not
respecting the original rules of 8231, but then I wonder if this document
shouldn't update 8231.