Hi, It helps to implement the draft and inter-operate with others, with a description of desired behavior in the draft.
-regards -ramana From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Pce] A query regarding PCUpd - admin down Hi All, For a delegated LSP, the stateful PCE may choose to make the LSP down and use the A bit in the LSP object in the PCUpd message, as per section 7.3 [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-09#page-31] - A(Administrative - 1 bit): On PCRpt messages, the A Flag indicates the PCC's target operational status for this LSP. On PCUpd messages, the A Flag indicates the LSP status that the PCE desires for this LSP. In both cases, a value of '1' means that the desired operational state is active, and a value of '0' means that the desired operational state is inactive. What should be the ERO during this operation in PCUpd message? [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-09#section-6.2] The format of a PCUpd message is as follows: <PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header> <update-request-list> Where: <update-request-list> ::= <update-request>[<update-request-list>] <update-request> ::= <SRP> <LSP> <path> Where: <path>::= <ERO><attribute-list> IMHO it should be an empty ERO (i.e. ERO object with no sub-objects) as this is the state that the PCE desire for this delegated LSP. What do you think? Should the desired behavior be noted in the draft to avoid misinterpretation and inter-operability issues? Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
