Hi All,
After discussion with the chairs, we would like to close this survey on Friday
the 19th September.
For those of you who are yet to send the survey, please do that as soon as
possible directly to chairs.
For those who have submitted already, thanks a lot :)
Dhruv
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
> Sent: 04 July 2014 23:57
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Pce] Survey on IRO
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
