Re: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alvaro,

Thanks for the comments. I've discussed with the Chairs and Authors, and we will keep the document on the telechat for today. The Chairs and Authors think it is possible to change the language so the document can stand on its own. They believe the overall change is small (they already are scrubbing a version).

Deborah

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 9:02 AM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-
> chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-
> app-07: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app-07: 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-stateful-pce-app/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This document mostly presents application scenarios, which (by reference)
> serve as motivation for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.  However, there are
> a couple of places (in Section 4) where the operation defined in
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is used as part of the considerations.  For
> example (from 4.1):
> 
>    Stateless and stateful PCEs can co-exist in the same network and be
>    in charge of path computation of different types.  To solve the
>    problem of distinguishing between the two types of PCEs, either
>    discovery or configuration may be used.  The capability negotiation
>    in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] ensures correct operation when the PCE
>    address is configured on the PCC.
> 
> I see a circular dependency between this document and
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce, where the considerations here are expected
> to motivate the extensions, but the specific extensions are used to
> discuss “generic issues with stateful PCE deployments”.
> 
> Given that draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is a Normative Reference, I would
> rather see this document come back for IESG Evaluation with/after
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.  Note that draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is
> still (AFAICT) under consideration in the WG.
> 
> 
> I am not making this comment a DISCUSS because I don’t think that it
> raises to the appropriate level (as only some parts of the document seem
> to have the dependency), and we’ll have to wait for
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce to be processed before publication anyway.
> However, I think that the application scenarios and motivation for future
> extensions should be able to be described without referring to the
> extensions themselves — I would then like the authors, Shepherd and the
> responsible AD to consider whether it is possible for this document to
> stand on its own, or whether we need to process it with the extensions
> draft.  Given that draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce is still in the WG, I
> think it is important for us to talk about it as this point.  I noted in
> the Shepherd’s writeup that this document used to be “originally included
> in the base stateful PCE protocol specification” (which I assume is
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce).
> 
> To be clear: I am not opposing the publication of this document (even
> though the content could have been part of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce),
> I just think that in the current form it should be processed/published
> *with* draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.
> 
> 
> [Mechanisms from I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations and
> I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp are also mentioned in similar ways, and
> those drafts are also in process in the WG.  I’m focusing on
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce above just to make the point.]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce