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

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 18:32:48 -0700

Adam Roach 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 5.1 defines the PCInititate Message, and is generally pretty good about
indicating where its component elements come from; however, it's missing
pointers to <LSP>, <END-POINTS>, and <ERO>. I think you want to add: "<LSP>,
<END-POINTS>, and <ERO> are defined in [RFC5440]".

Section 5.3 indicates that an indication that the PCC is supposed to pick the
source address is signaled by using a source address of "0.0.0.0" --
presumably, if the destination is an IPv6 address, this would instead use "::",
right? Please add text that addresses the IPv6 case.

I'm pretty certain that [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations] is a
normative reference. Even though its use is optional, this document contains
normative statements regarding its mechanism. See
<https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html> for guidance,
and "Note 1" of that statement in particular.