Dhruv, thanks for your answer.
I like your proposed change. I'll reply to Deborah's e-mail regarding the Update. On that subject, have you seen: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag-01 ? -m Le 2019-09-30 à 13:28, Dhruv Dhody a écrit : > Hi Martin, > > Thanks for your review, request authors to chime in as needed. > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:23 PM Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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]. >> > > Maybe we can add - "...unless explicitly set aside in this document." > >> 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. >> >> > > I am not sure if this rises to the level of "update" (as I understand > it and not taking the ongoing discussion on the topic); to me it is a > normal extension of a protocol 'business as usual'! > > I think maybe it is time for some AD guidance on this :) > > Thanks! > Dhruv > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
