Hi all,
I have summitted the draft which proposes a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for LSP
object to extend the length of the flag field.
Could you please give me some suggestions about the format?
Thanks,
Quan
原始邮件
发件人：[email protected] <[email protected]>
收件人：熊泉00091065;
日 期 ：2019年11月27日 15:54
主 题 ：New Version Notification for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Quan Xiong and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag
Revision: 00
Title: LSP Object Flag field of Stateful PCE
Document date: 2019-11-26
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 6
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag/
Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00
Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag
Abstract:
RFC8231 describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths(LSPs) via PCEP.
One of the extensions is the LSP object which includes a Flag field
and the length is 12 bits. However, 11 bits of the Flag field has
been assigned in RFC8231, RFC8281 and RFC8623 respectively.
This document updates RFC8231 by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
for LSP object to extend the length of the flag.
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
The IETF Secretariat_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
