Hi, about #5.4 LSP deletion " A PLSP-ID of zero removes all LSPs that were initiated by the PCE... Following the removal of the LSP, the PCC MUST send a PCRpt as described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]. The SRP object in the PCRpt MUST include the SRP-ID-number from the PCInitiate message that triggered the removal. The R flag in the SRP object SHOULD be set. "
The draft needs to clarify PCRpt message for such cases: 1. Does PCC send single PCRpt (with SRP-ID)? 2. PCC sends PCRpt for each deleted LSP. In such cases PCE will have to accept multiple PCRpt with same SRP-ID. Thanks -Girish On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Andrew Veitch <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Is there an update regarding this draft and/or any additional supporting > work needed? Thanks. > > Andy > > > Re: [Pce] Status of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp > "Adrian Farrel" <[email protected]> Tue, 03 May 2016 19:16 UTC > > Hi Ina, > Great that you have this under control. > > Looks like "review and review" are the actions on me. > Will do. > > Cheers, > Adrian > > From: Ina Minei [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > Sent: 02 May 2016 17:17 > To: 'Adrian Farrel' ([email protected]) > Cc: pce; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Status of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp > > Adrian, > > Thank you for bringing this up. I will repost the initiation draft, I am > aware that it expired. Before doing so, will reply to what I think is the > unfinished thread ( > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/wn4gGwZnTZS53pbyg1eCHw3YMVE> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/wn4gGwZnTZS53pbyg1eCHw3YMVE) , > please let me know if there was a different thread that you are referring to. > Thank you for bringing this up, this had completely fallen through the cracks > on my end. > > Thank you for your offer to help with the stateful PCE I-D. Your help would > be appreciated in letting us know if there are pending changes needed, as I > am assuming that the version posted a month ago addressed all issues, want to > make sure this is not a similar situation as the initiation draft. > > Thank you, > > Ina > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > In Buenos Aires Jon presented the WG status (thanks) and showed that > draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp is "Pending shepherd review". > > Just looking now (because quite a lot of new work seems to depend on the > PCInitiate message) I see that: > > - The I-D expired a couple of days ago (April 21, 2016) > > - The last discussion on the list was an email from Julien suggesting that > some work was needed to address open questions on the list. > > I'd like to see this I-D move forward now (as well as the stateful PCE I-D!). > Can I offer my assistance to the authors in any way? I am willing to shovel > shit, or just make editorial changes. > > Let's dig the WG out of the treacle and start to be relevant again :-) > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > > ------------------------------ > The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or > entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary > and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or > other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by > persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you > received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material > from any computer. > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
