Subject: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 11:25:08 -0700

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.