Hi Andrew,
Do you think an update to RFC 5440 is required (with meta-data set in
the document header)?
Based on the description of the flag field it feels like an update
would be needed -
o L flag: As defined in [RFC5440] and further updated by this
document. When set, protection is desired. When not set,
protection is not desired. The enforcement of the protection is
identified via the E-Flag.
BTW, thanks for section 4 it helps!
Maybe add an explicit backward compatibility section. Consider a PCC
that supports your extension, and sets the E flag to 1 and a PCE that
does not support your extension will ignore it and behave as before
and thus not enforce local protection, and there would be no way for
the PCC to know about it! Not sure if we need some sort of capability
exchange here?
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 10:45 PM Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi PCE WG,
>
> This draft was updated to include the following:
>
> - Draft renamed to reflect this is for "local" protection enforcement (used
> to be called path-protection)
> - new co author
> - Added more text regarding the various use cases / why a user may want these
> options
> - Added text discussing situations of no preference / "no not care"
>
> Thanks
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On 2020-03-02, 11:32 AM, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Andrew Stone and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement
> Revision: 00
> Title: Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP
> Document date: 2020-03-02
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 8
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-00
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement
>
>
> Abstract:
> This document aims to clarify existing usage of the local protection
> desired bit signalled in Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP).
> This document also introduces a new flag for signalling protection
> strictness in PCEP.
>
>
>
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
