Hi Julien, 

> 
> 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.

Here is my suggested wording -  

Abstract - 
OLD: 
   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.
NEW:
   This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information
   in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Value (TLV) that
   can be carried in a PCEP object that supports TLVs.

Introduction - 
OLD: 
   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.
NEW:
   This document also defines a new PCEP TLV, the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV
   that can be used to carry arbitrary information within any existing or 
   future defined PCEP object that supports TLVs.

> 
> By the way, your quotes allows us to catch a weird expansion of "TLV":
> "V" stands for "Value", not "Variable"...

Oh yes! Good catch! Updated above..

Regards,
Dhruv

> 
> 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

Reply via email to