Hi PCE WG.

To address the issues associated with draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence and "Include Route Object" in PCEP, Dhruv has proposed to start a small survey. If implementers agree that we need to clarify this, they would be much welcome to answer the attached questions.

Dhruv will process the results, but to improve confidentiality, answers may be sent privately to the chairs.

Thanks,

JP & Julien, on behalf of Dhruv

During discussion of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-04, it has been
noted that RFC5440 does not define whether the sub-objects in the IRO 
are ordered or unordered.

We would like to do an informal and *confidential* survey of current
implementations, to help clarify this situation.

1. IRO Encoding

   a. Does your implementation construct IRO?

   b. If your answer to part (a) is Yes, does your implementation
      construct the IRO as an ordered list always, sometimes or never?

   c. If your answer to part (b) is Sometimes, what criteria do you use
      to decide if the IRO is an ordered or unordered list?

   d. If your answer to part (b) is Always or Sometimes, does your
      implementation construct the IRO as a sequence of strict hops
      or as a sequence of loose hops?

2. IRO Decoding

   a. Does your implementation decode IRO?

   b. If your answer to part (a) is Yes, does your implementation
      interpret the decoded IRO as an ordered list always, sometimes
      or never?

   c. If your answer to part (b) is Sometimes, what criteria do you use
      to decide if the IRO is an ordered or unordered list?

   d. If your answer to part (b) is Always or Sometimes, does your
      implementation interpret the IRO as a sequence of strict hops
      or as a sequence of loose hops?

3. Impact

   a. Will there be an impact to your implementation if RFC5440 is
      updated to state that the IRO is an ordered list?

   b. Will there be an impact to your implementation if RFC 5440 is
      updated to state that the IRO is an unordered list?

   c. If RFC 5440 is updated to state that the IRO is an ordered list,
      will there be an impact to your implementation if RFC 5440 is also
      updated to allow IRO sub-objects to use the loose bit (L-bit)?

4. Respondents

   a. Are you a Vendor/Research Lab/Software House/Other (please
      specify)? 
      
   b. If your answer to part (a) is Vendor, is the implementation for a
      shipping product, product under development or a prototype?
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Reply via email to