Subject: [OSPF] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:17:21 -0800

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-link-overload-13: 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-ospf-link-overload/

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

I found the title of section 7.2 "Controller Based Traffic Engineering
Deployments" confusing as it only is describing a controller controlling a
path. It is not "TE" in the IETF sense e.g. TE signaling. It would be much less
confusing if say "Controller Based Deployments" and "satisfying the traffic
engineering constraints"/s/"satisfying the constraints". Especially as for TE,
procedures already do exist.  I noted in the introduction you did reference
RFC5817 MPLS Graceful Shutdown on the procedures when doing a graceful shutdown
of a TE link.