Hi Alexey,
My apology for the delay in responding to your comment. Please see inline for
my response.
Thanks.
young
From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 4:34 AM
To: Leeyoung <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Daniele Ceccarelli
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11:
(with COMMENT)
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, at 1:44 AM, Leeyoung wrote:
In Section 4.3:
o Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction
is applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count
field.
Is the type field extensible?
YL>> Yes.
In this case the document is problematic, because length depends on the
particular link type, so if a receiver doesn't recognize a particular link
type, it wouldn't be able to parse the structure. (If this is by design, you
might want to be more explicit about this.)
You also need an IANA registry for link format types.
YL>> What I meant extensible is that there are reserved field for the future
use. We did not ask for IANA for this; instead, the PCE co-chair (please the
attached email from Julien on this matter) suggested to re-use the existing
registry defined in LMP. Please see the revised text in the last paragraph of
Section 4.3.1:
“The Type field is extensible. Please refer to the IANA registry
allocated for Link Management Protocol (LMP) [RFC4204]:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/lmp-
parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15.”
Do you think we still need IANA registry for link format types explicitly in
this document?
Best Regards,
Alexey
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Young,
FWIW, the IANA already manages several similar registries with the same 3
entries (e.g.,
https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/lmp-parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15).
Creating one will help addressing this concern raised by Alexey and Benjamin.
Thanks,
Julien
On 07/02/2019 02:27, Leeyoung wrote:
What is the mechanism for extensibility of future Link Identifier sub-TLV
types? Should there be a registry?
YL>> I am not sure if we need reserve for future interface type. Typical
PCEP/GMPLS RFCs do not go beyond this three types and the unnumbered type is
flexible enough to accommodate other types than IPv4 and IPv6.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
