Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: 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-lsp-control-request/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, thank you for this document. This document indicates: "...MUST NOT trigger the error condition for unknown PLSP-ID in an LSP update request as per [RFC8231] ...". "...MUST NOT trigger the error handling as specified in [RFC8231] ...". Yet, it also says: The procedures for granting and relinquishing control of the LSPs are specified in accordance with the specification [RFC8231]. So 1/ it seems to me that the latter sentence, considering the first two, is not strictly correct. 2/ the rationale is well described, so I'm fine with not respecting the original rules of 8231, but then I wonder if this document shouldn't update 8231. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
