Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-35: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this document. I have not comments from transport protocol points of view. I have following comment/question though - - In section 6.1 it says - "The PCInitiate message SHOULD be sent to PCC which is acting as BGP router and/or RR." In Section 6.2 it says - "The PCInitiate message SHOULD be sent to every router on the path." To me it seems like there is not way to bypass those SHOULDs and get the route and session establishment procedure done. If that understanding is correct then what are the exceptionsthiking about to let the implementers skip that part? Also, if this understand is not true, then I would expect this document to give warnings on the effects of skiping the PCInitiate messages. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
