Hi, I know some implementers do not like to have changing object/tlv names, but I think using the lsp name(SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME) when it's a control plane opaque identifiers will confuse implementers and it seems it makes already difficult to understand.
Using a PATH-ID (for example) would make it more clear, also to explain the relation to the PLSP-ID (shortened identifier valid for the PCEP Session) and additional other optional identifiers (RSVP or ASCII string). Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Cyril Margaria From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 8:45 AM To: Ina Minei; [email protected] Cc: Siva Sivabalan (msiva) Subject: Re: [Pce] Implementation experience with draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp? El 11/10/2013 23:14, Ina Minei escribió: ways to refer to an LSP: by its plspid bound to a given PCEP connection, by its symbolic name, by its control plane identifiers, by the srpid after a request.... The exact usage could be clarified and, in latest versions, some seem to be redundant: can't the SRP id replace the role of the symbolic name TLV? [ina] The lsp name is the identifier, but since it's inconvenient to send it around in messages the plsp-id takes that role. The control-plane identifiers identify different instances of the lsp (to disambiguate the two paths that briefly co-exist when doing mbb). The srpid is not the lsp identifier, it is a transaction identifier. Agreed and udnerstood, I guess then another question I have is whether the transaction identifier should be transparent to the semantics of the transaction, and the R flag moved to the LSP object? Thanks, R.
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
