Subject: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-19: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 18:53:02 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-scheduling-19: 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-lsp-scheduling/

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

I concur with Alvaro Retana’s point (2) and (3), that since time
synchronization is key to functionality clarified normative guidance is needed.

I support Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS position.

** Section 2.1.  Thank you for providing a mapping of terms to references.

** Consider using normative language in the following places:
-- Section 5.2.1.  Per “The Start-Time indicates a time at or before which the
schedule LSP must be set up”, should this be a normative MUST?

-- Section 8.  Per “Thus, such deployment should employ suitable PCEP security
mechanisms …”, why not a normative SHOULD?

** Editorial Nits:
-- Section 1.  Typo. s/can not/cannot/

-- Section 5.2.1.  Typo. s/an non zero/a non zero/g