On 09/08/2016 03:10 PM, Olivier Dugeon wrote: > Hello Robert, > > Le 08/09/2016 11:38, Robert Varga a écrit : >> On 09/07/2016 05:57 PM, Ina Minei wrote: >>> I think if we replace MUST with SHOULD in the text you provided that >>> would work for the transition. Can implementors comment on the impact? >> The change in PCRpt format is incompatible with fielded installations. >> >> OpenDaylight will refuse a PCRpt consisting of (LSP, NO-PATH) and will >> raise an Mandatory Object Missing PCErr, leading to failure to perform >> initial state synchronization. The requirement has been there since >> revision 05 (at least) and has been clarified in revision 16. > Agree. But, as we face to some interoperability issues between various > implementation, whatever the solution we choose, we need new release, so > new version of firmware in the routers and new software for the PCE. So, > I prefer to have a clear fix without any ambiguity instead of patch what > wil continue to be subject to misinterpretation. > > Regarding OpenDayLight, I think that the modification is not too huge:
I do agree that the change is not that big, but it will lead to the same interoperability issues we have had with -02 and -07, which required explicit configuration to deal with network-wide upgrades. Unlike the previous break in protocol, the draft now has an IANA early allocation, which prohibits us from breaking the protocol. Quoting https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7120#section-2: c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later specifications must be seamlessly interoperable. Bye, Robert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
