Hi all,
I reviewed the draft and personally support WG adoption because it is very
important work.
Few comments:
1) Jeff earlier provided the comments about Function Code section (page 11), I
would like to add mine: there are only End.DX6, End.DT6 functions - how about
End.DT4, End.DX4? VPNv4 is still very important, IMO. In broader scope - how
to encode much more functions from
draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-network-programming as Jeff mentioned.
2) Section 3.3.3.2 ERO processing
....
If a PCC receives a list of SRv6 segments, and the number of SRv6
segments exceeds the SRv6 MSD that the PCC can impose on the packet
(SRH), it MAY send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception
of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD ("Unsupported number of
Segment ERO subobjects") as per [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].
I personally doubt that '.. MAY send ..." is a right way here due to possible
bad consequences on forwarding plane without PCErr. IMO, again, it needs to be
at least should. Please consider pros and cons.
Thanks.
SY,
Boris
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 9:47 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption Call for draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6
Hi WG,
Please read & review draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-04 [1] and send your
comments to the mailing list.
Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
- Why / why not?
What needs to be fixed before or after adoption?
Are you willing to work on this draft? Do you plan to implement it?
This poll will run until 8th March.
Thanks,
PCE Chairs
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/?include_text=1
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
