Subject: [Teas] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 18:55:02 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-lsp-diversity-08: 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-teas-lsp-diversity/

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

I’m looking at this text,

           0x04 = Penultimate node exception

               Indicates that the penultimate node of the LSP being
               signaled MAY be shared with the excluded path even when
               this violates the exclusion flags.

and wondering whether you could either provide some recommendation about doing
this/not doing this, or give an example of why doing this/not doing this makes
operational sense. The other exceptions do make sense to me, so I’m only
curious about this one.