Roman Danyliw 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS point on the need to clarify the authorization policy of a PCE asking for control, and have the same question as Alvaro Retana posed about how the PCC determines when to honor a PCE’s request to take control an LSP. More discussion of this policy mechanism is needed. ** As this draft is defining a bit from the previously reserved allocation of the flag field and redefining the semantics of 0 in the PLSP-ID of the SRP object per Section 7.2 of RFC8281, is there a reason that this draft does not formally update RFC8281. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
