Skip to main content

IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery
draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-08

Yes

(Ross Callon)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Ward; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-10-03)
I still haven't memorized routing terminology so I exercised the terminology section.  FYI:

 - The terminology expansion of IS-IS LSP confused me.  Why is LSP "Link State PDU" here and "Label Stitched Path" everywhere else?.  
 - I assume PCED is PCE-Domain -- only the latter is expanded in terminology
 - TLV not defined or referenced (though I realize it's a very well-known TLA in the field)

Section 3.2
 - flooding scope through "L1 area" and "L2 sub-domain" -- should this be part of terminology or an explanation referenced?

Section 4.1
 - If two PCE-ADDRESS sub-TLVs appear, " only the first occurrence is processed and any others MUST be ignored".   With this requirement, what use is it to allow two of PCE-ADDRESS?  If one can be IPv6 and one IPv4 but only the first one MUST be processed, then the other one is useless.

thx -- Lisa

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-10-03)

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2007-10-03)
In section 4.2:

Is consistent computation of the PrefL, PrefR, PrefS and PrefY field values important?  If so, are
we depending upon common administration of all PCEs?  Without a more detailed algorithm, it
seems likely a PCC could discover a set of PCEs that used very different algorithms for setting
the preference values.