Subject: [Pce] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 06:37:56 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-10: 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-pce-initiated-lsp/

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

1) I'm wondering why this spec is not part of I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce as it
is also not published yet...?

2) I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations should also be a normative
references, given a flag is used in section 4.1 and a TLV is used in section
5.3.2 that are defined in that draft.

3) sec 5.4: "A PLSP-ID of zero removes all LSPs that were initiated by the
PCE." and
   "If the PLSP-ID specified in the PCInitiate message was not created by a
   PCE.."
  -> This means that the PCC must remember which LSP was created by which PCE
  at instantiation time. This could be stated more explicitly.