This looks good to me. Thanks, Adrian
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 30 July 2014 11:47 > To: Julien Meuric; [email protected]; 'Adrian Farrel' ([email protected]); Fatai > Zhang > Cc: Siva Sivabalan (msiva) > Subject: RE: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-rfc7150bis-00.txt > > 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
