Hi Barry, This makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Thanks, Dhruv On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:39 PM Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > — Section 4 — > > > > > > The D Flag and C > > > Flag are mutually exclusive in PCUpd message. The PCE SHOULD NOT > > > send control request for LSP which is already delegated to the PCE, > > > i.e. if the D Flag is set in the PCUpd message, then C Flag SHOULD > > > NOT be set. > > > > > > I’m confused: “mutually exclusive” means that they can’t both be set. So > > > why > > > SHOULD NOT and not MUST NOT? (You’re also missing a few articles here: ”a > > > PCUpd message”, “a control request”, “an LSP”, and “the C Flag”. > > > > > > > I think the reason for SHOULD NOT was because when a PCC receives this > > - it would simply ignore it! > > This did not rise to the level of error usual for MUST NOT! > > > > If you feel that the above isn't a good enough reason, changing would > > not cause any harm either. > > If the working group thinks that SHOULD NOT is right, it should stay > that way -- I just questioned the combination of "mutually exclusive" > and "SHOULD NOT". So here are my thoughts: > > 1. If there is no reason they should ever be set together, then it > should be MUST NOT. > > 2. If there might be a reason to set them together -- it's difficult > to meet the conditions in some way, or whatever -- then SHOULD NOT is > OK. > > 3. If you keep it as SHOULD NOT, I think you should change the > "mutually exclusive" sentence to be less strong. > > It sounds to me like MUST NOT is the right thing here -- that there's > never a reason to set them both together, and that it doesn't make > sense in the protocol to have them both set. So even though the > receiver can ignore the situation, MUST NOT still applies. > > Barry _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
