[Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-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-association-bidir/



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

This document defines extensions that can be used in different modes of
operation (§3.4).  However, there is no operational guidance related to the
advantages/disadvantages or considerations of using each of them.  Are there
cases (beyond implementation support) when one mode could be preferred?  If all
modes are supported, how should an operator choose?

I believe that the specification is incomplete without this type of guidance,
but I am not making this point a DISCUSS hoping that it will be easy for the
authors to address.