Hi Giuseppe, Thank you for introducing your draft on the mailing list.
A quick high level questions - Could we make this generic: to be applied for any Path Setup Type (PST) in PCEP - RSVP-TE, SR, PCECC etc? I agree that SR might be of immediate importance; but from PCEP point of view, it could be useful to keep this generic so that we don't have to reinvent it for other PST. It might be good idea to tackle the need for this extension in PCEP - which to me is to make sure that the PCC includes IOAM header in the data packet with fields as specified by the PCE. Correct? Also suggest to add capability exchange during open messages before a peer uses this extension. Thanks! Dhruv (as a WG contributor) On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:38 PM Giuseppe Fioccola <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear All, > > We published draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit-00 > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit/). > > This document aims to define the Extensions to PCEP to distribute SR policies > carrying In-situ Flow Information Telemetry information. The scope is to > enable automatically data plane on-path telemetry methods, like IOAM and > Alternate Marking, when the SR policy is applied. > > > > We would introduce it during the next virtual meeting, that has been moved to > May or June, and meanwhile, we would really appreciate inputs and reviews of > the document. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Giuseppe > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
