Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 05:37:14 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: 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-association-bidir/

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

This document defines extensions that can be used in different modes of
operation (§3.4).  However, there is no operational guidance related to the
advantages/disadvantages or considerations of using each of them.  Are there
cases (beyond implementation support) when one mode could be preferred?  If all
modes are supported, how should an operator choose?

I believe that the specification is incomplete without this type of guidance,
but I am not making this point a DISCUSS hoping that it will be easy for the
authors to address.

---

From: "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 21:39:35 +0000

Thank you Alvaro for the review comments.

We have added a Section 3.5 - Operational Considerations in the new revision to address the comment.

URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-13.txt
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-13

Please advise your feedback on this.

Thanks,
Rakesh

From: Pce <[email-masked]> on behalf of Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 8:37 AM
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: (with COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: No Objection

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:49:34 -0800

Rakesh:

Hi!

This new text works for me.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On February 19, 2021 at 4:39:48 PM, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) (
[email-masked]) wrote:

We have added a Section 3.5 - Operational Considerations in the new
revision to address the comment.

URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-13.txt
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-13

Thanks,

Rakesh

*From: *Pce <[email-masked]> on behalf of Alvaro Retana via
Datatracker <[email-masked]>
*Date: *Tuesday, February 16, 2021 at 8:37 AM
*To: *The IESG <[email-masked]>
*Cc: [email-masked] <
[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>
*Subject: *[Pce] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on
draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-12: (with COMMENT)

cases (beyond implementation support) when one mode could be preferred?  If
all

I believe that the specification is incomplete without this type of
guidance,
but I am not making this point a DISCUSS hoping that it will be easy for the
authors to address.