Hi Adrian and Dhruv,
Thanks for your suggestion! I will consider the option as defined in RFC5088.
I will update the draft as we discussed as soon as possible.
More comments and suggestions are welcome!
Best Regards,
Quan
原始邮件
发件人：AdrianFarrel <[email protected]>
收件人：'Dhruv Dhody' <[email protected]>;熊泉00091065;
抄送人：'Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)' <[email protected]>;'Loa
Andersson' <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
日 期 ：2019年12月02日 21:22
主 题 ：RE: [Pce] [pce] :New Version Notification for
draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt
Hi,
I wouldn't object to any solution.
- What Dhruv suggests
- Just 32 bits and define a new TLV if more bits are ever needed
Best,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>
Sent: 02 December 2019 05:28
To: [email protected]
Cc: Farrel Adrian <[email protected]>; Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
<[email protected]>; Loa Andersson <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] [pce] :New Version Notification for
draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt
Hi Quan,
> But for the last issue, I am not sure if the length of 32 bits is good or
> not. If 32 bits is enough for the extensions of other I-Ds?
>
> What is your suggestion?
I can think of one case: PCE capability flags in [1], where we defined
it as an array of units of 32-bit flags numbered from the most
significant as bit zero, where each bit represents one flag. In the
corresponding IANA registry [2], we maintained it as 32 bits for now,
which can be easily updated by a future document when needed.
As a WG contributor, I think it is better to be future proof even
though 32 bits seems good enough at the present.
Thanks!
Dhruv
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5088#section-4.5
[2]
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#ospfv2-parameters-14
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
