Hi authors, In the section 5.2 of [draft-barth-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-05], SR Policy Name TLV is defined to carry Policy name. Policy name and Candidate Path name have different definitions in [draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-06#section 2.1/2.6]. And there MAY be ambiguity here, I think this TLV carries name to Candidate Path instead of name to Policy. The reasons are :
(1) There are multiple sources for the SR Policy of the head node. There will be multiple different Names to the same Policy if the PCE is allowed to deliver the Policy Name, which is difficult to manage. (2) In [draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-08#section-2.4.6], the draft clearly states "the Policy Name sub-TLV to attach a symbolic name to the SR Policy candidate path". The realization of BGP for SR Policy has reference value for PCEP. Please confirm whose name the SR Policy Name TLV carries in the draft. Kind regards, Ruizhao
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
