Subject: [Pce] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with DISCUSS)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 16:23:58 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: Discuss

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-setup-type/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ignas balloted NoObj; I'll be the baddie.

Section 6.  Manageability Considerations says:
---
Each document that introduces a new path setup type to PCEP must
   include a manageability section.  The manageability section must
   explain how operators can manage PCEP with the new path setup type.
   It must address the following questions, which are generally
   applicable when working with multiple path setup types in PCEP.

   o  What are the criteria for when devices will use the new path setup
      type in PCEP, and how can the operator control this?

   o  How can the network be migrated to the new path setup type, and
      are there any backwards compatibility issues that operators need
      to be aware of?

   o  Are paths set up using the new path setup type intended to coexist
      with other paths over the long term and, if so, how is this
      situation managed with PCEP?
----

So, I see lots of open questions, but no answers to any of these....