Subject: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:32:38 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-scheduled-resources-06: 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-teas-scheduled-resources/

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

It might be nice to have some idea of a typical/expected timescale for length
of reservation and distance in the future being reserved, though I concede
there is risk that any such suggestion could become stale.

In Section 3.2

   [...] When the LSP or the
   request for the LSP with a number of time intervals is cancelled, the
   PCE must release the resources that were reserved on each of the
   links along the path of the LSP in every time intervals from the TED.
   If the bandwidth reserved on a link for the LSP is B from time T2 to
   T3 and the unreserved bandwidth on the link is B2 from T2 to T3, B is
   added to the link for the time interval from T2 to T3 and the
   unreserved bandwidth on the link from T2 to T3 will be B2 + B

Is this supposed to describe what happens when the request for an
LSP from T2 to T3 is cancelled?  If so, the text does not do a good
job of indicating it -- the "If the bandwidth reserved..." reads like it's
starting a new conditional expression, not necessarily connected to the
previous coverage of cancellation.

Thank you for the clear security considerations section!