Subject: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:02:51 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-14: 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-hpce/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for addressing my Discuss point!

I would consider including the conclusion from our discussion about what
would happen if a PCEP speaker does not support stateful H-PCE but the peer
assumes it does, perhaps in an operational considerations section, but this does
not rise to a Discuss-level point.  For convenience, this was discussed as:

% I further did a mental exercise for PCC -> C-PCE -> P-PCE and assumed
% all support stateful and H-PCE extension but what happens when any
% PCEP speaker does not support stateful H-PCE but the peer assumes that
% it does. On further PCEP message exchange, the messages may not get
% further propagated and thus at worse would not lead to the stateful
% H-PCE based 'parent' control of the LSP. This is something any peer
% should be prepared for anyways.

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 11:58:21 +0530

Hi Benjamin,

This has been added in -15 version.

Thanks!
Dhruv