[Pce] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: 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-pcep-extension-native-ip/



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

Thanks for working on this document. I have not comments from transport
protocol points of view.

I have following comment/question though -

 - In section 6.1 it says -

              "The PCInitiate message SHOULD be sent to PCC which is acting as
              BGP router and/or RR."

   In Section 6.2 it says -

              "The PCInitiate message SHOULD be sent to every router on the
              path."

   To me it seems like there is not way to bypass those SHOULDs and get the
   route and session establishment procedure done. If that understanding is
   correct then what are the exceptionsthiking about to let the implementers
   skip that part? Also, if this understand is not true, then I would expect
   this document to give warnings on the effects of skiping the PCInitiate
   messages.