Hi Mirja
Many thanks for your comment. I'm picking up this thread and replying as PCE
working group chair, as the authors are unavailable. I apologise for the delay.
It is possible for a PCC or a stateful PCE not to support updates and still to
advertise the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV. This scenario is called a "passive
stateful PCE". A passive stateful PCE does not update LSP state, but it does
still synchronize LSP state with its PCCs, which allows it to take account of
dependencies with existing LSPs when calculating paths for new LSPs (for
example, to avoid two LSPs traversing the same link). It is discussed in
section 5.8.1.
Best regards
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net]
Sent: 14 March 2017 12:22
To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-...@ietf.org; Julien Meuric
<julien.meu...@orange.com>; pce-cha...@ietf.org; julien.meu...@orange.com;
pce@ietf.org
Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18:
(with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18: 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-stateful-pce/
--
COMMENT:
--
Minor comment:
The U flag in the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is probably not necessary as the
presents of this TVL already indicates that updates are supported; however not
an issue.
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
