Hi Dhruv.
I would say that, if the intend was to allow the specified TLV in
objects where optional TLVs do not exist, it would not be phrased like
this. All the same, it makes no harm to add explicitly "allowing
optional TLVs" in the I-D.
By the way, your quotes allows us to catch a weird expansion of "TLV":
"V" stands for "Value", not "Variable"...
Thanks,
Julien
Jul. 30, 2014 - Dhruv Dhody:
Hi Authors, WG,
As we are in midst of a bis for 7150, I wanted to bring this to the notice of
the WG.
There was a offline discussion about the use of VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV in the
LSP object defined in stateful PCE draft.
In Abstract it says..
This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information
in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Variable that
can be carried in any existing PCEP object.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
In Introduction it says..
This document also defines a new PCEP TLV, the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV
that can be used to carry arbitrary information within any PCEP
object that supports TLVs. ^^^
Surely the intention was to allow the use of VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV in *any*
PCEP object (existing or defined in future) that allow optional TLVs.
We hope this can be clarified / made explicit in the bis to avoid any confusion.
Regards,
Dhruv
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: 22 July 2014 19:12
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path
Computation Element communication Protocol
Authors : Fatai Zhang
Adrian Farrel
Filename : draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis-00.txt
Pages : 12
Date : 2014-07-22
Abstract:
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) is used to
convey path computation requests and responses both between Path
Computation Clients (PCCs) and Path Computation Elements (PCEs) and
between cooperating PCEs. In PCEP, the path computation requests
carry details of the constraints and objective functions that the PCC
wishes the PCE to apply in its computation.
This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information
in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Variable that
can be carried in any existing PCEP object.
This document obsoletes RFC 7150. The only change from that document
is the allocation of a different code point for the
VENDOR-INFORMATION object.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis-00
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
