[Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-12: 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-inter-layer-ext/



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

Minor comments:
1) I guess the I flag in the INTER-LAYER Object is actually not needed as
the present of the INTER-LAYER Object already indicates that inter-layer
information is requested, but that is not an issue.
2) Is the INTER-LAYER Object Flags registry really needed, given the
limited amount of flag space???
3) Security Consideration: "Inter-layer traffic engineering with PCE may
raise new security
   issues when PCE-PCE communication is done between different layer
   networks for inter-layer path computation."
   This text is not very helpful as this section is meant to be used to
document these new issues.