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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Thanks for your review, request authors to chime in as needed.

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:23 PM Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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].
>

Maybe we can add - "...unless explicitly set aside in this document."

> 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.
>
>

I am not sure if this rises to the level of "update" (as I understand
it and not taking the ongoing discussion on the topic); to me it is a
normal extension of a protocol 'business as usual'!

I think maybe it is time for some AD guidance on this :)

Thanks!
Dhruv