Hi Qin,
This was at a time when there were concerns about advertising non-IGP specific
information in OSPF(v3) Router Information LSAs. We've since assuaged our
concerns with RFC 7770 where I added the functionality of advertising multiple
instances of the OSPF(v3) Router Information LSA. Note that this new draft
should update both RFC 5088 and RFC 5089.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/16/18, 12:01 AM, "Qin Wu" <bill...@huawei.com> wrote:
Working on this. Try to figure out how to carry key name in PCED sub-TLV.
It looks RFC5088 and RFC5089 doesn't allow add additional sub-TLVs.
"
RFC5088
No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future.
If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE
information in OSPF, this will not be carried in the Router
Information LSA.
RFC5089
No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future.
If a future application requires the advertisement of additional PCE
information in IS-IS, this will not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV.
"
The reason behind was clarified here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/cR7e1SZ_DyUyY14OkfWbCc94paU
I am wondering whether there is any other key information exchange that
might be happening during discovery mechanism.
Depending on the answer, we have three options:
1) Update RFC5088 and RFC 5089 to allow additional sub-TLVs to be added to
the PCEP TLV.
2) carry key name using GENINFO TLV of RFC 6823
3) Carry key name during PCEP session establishment phase instead of
discovery phase.
-Qin
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Acee Lindem (acee)
发送时间: 2018年11月15日 23:18
收件人: julien.meu...@orange.com; l...@ietf.org
抄送: pce@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lsr] WG Adoption Poll for IGP extension for PCEP security
capability support in the PCE discovery -
draft-wu-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-00
Authors,
Please note that you need not wait until the end of the adoption poll to
address my comment and Julien's comments.
Thanks,
Acee
On 11/15/18, 10:02 AM, "Lsr on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com"
<lsr-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com> wrote:
Hi,
Contributor hat on, I take the opportunity mentioned by Acee to
highlight some of the issues in the current version:
- The I-D teaches multiple time about RFC 5088 and 5089 (while 8253 is
only mentioned in the introduction): the discussed mechanism has been
used multiple times, there is no need to elaborate so much (see section
3.1.1 of RFC 8306 for example);
- Section 3 includes the PCE-CAP-FLAGS sub-TLV definition: having a
given specification in multiples places brings no value but may create
discrepancies, please stick to the references to the aforementioned
RFCs;
- Section 3 tries to list the existing flag allocations: these are
inaccurate (e.g. RFC 6006 has been obsoleted by RFC 8306), incomplete
(e.g. RFC 8231 is missing) and inappropriate (this is the role of the
IANA registry, not of every new I-D!);
- Contrary to the written text, the I-D does not "extend" anything, it
requests bit allocation from an existing registry; the IANA section (7)
is thus key: please make it point to the relevant registry, namely "PCE
Capability Flags" managed within the "OSPFv2 Parameters"
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xml#ospfv2-parameters-14).
Thanks,
Julien
On 13/11/2018 23:10, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Note the authors may refresh the draft to address some comments prior
> to that time.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme
ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
l...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
l...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
