Re: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-14: (with COMMENT)

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Benjamin,

This has been added in -15 version.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 9:32 AM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-14: 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-hpce/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for addressing my Discuss point!
>
> I would consider including the conclusion from our discussion about what
> would happen if a PCEP speaker does not support stateful H-PCE but the peer
> assumes it does, perhaps in an operational considerations section, but this does
> not rise to a Discuss-level point.  For convenience, this was discussed as:
>
> % I further did a mental exercise for PCC -> C-PCE -> P-PCE and assumed
> % all support stateful and H-PCE extension but what happens when any
> % PCEP speaker does not support stateful H-PCE but the peer assumes that
> % it does. On further PCEP message exchange, the messages may not get
> % further propagated and thus at worse would not lead to the stateful
> % H-PCE based 'parent' control of the LSP. This is something any peer
> % should be prepared for anyways.
>
>