Subject: [Pce] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:46:36 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for considering my Discuss.

Previous comments follow - I didn't check for these in the new version.

In this text,

  The State Timeout Interval timer ensures that a PCE crash does not
   result in automatic and immediate disruption for the services using
   PCE-initiated LSPs.  PCE-initiated LSPs are not removed immediately
   upon PCE failure.  Instead, they are cleaned up on the expiration of
   this timer.  This allows for network cleanup without manual
   intervention.  The PCC SHOULD support removal of PCE-initiated LSPs
   as one of the behaviors applied on expiration of the State Timeout
   Interval timer.  The behavior SHOULD be picked based on local policy,
   and can result either in LSP removal, or in reverting to operator-
   defined default parameters.

I found myself wondering why “The PCC SHOULD support removal of PCE-initiated
LSPs” is a SHOULD, and not a MUST, but if it’s a SHOULD, you might say
something about the effects of not supporting this, in order to help
implementers make an informed decision about whether to support it.

In the same text, I found myself wondering if there were other alternatives to
local policy for the last SHOULD, which is, of course, the last stop on the way
to asking why this isn’t a MUST …