Quan,
I have not done a comprehensive review of the document, but from what I
see it is a well written and much needed document. I would advice to run
the working group adoption poll as soon as possible.
I have one comment and one question.
Comment:
5.2. PCEP-Error Object
IANA is requested to register the following error types and error
values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values"
subregistry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry:
+--------------+-------------------------------------+
| Error-Type | Meaning |
+--------------+-------------------------------------+
| 6 | Mandatory Object missing |
| | Error-value |
| | TBD2: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV missing |
+--------------+-------------------------------------+
Table 2
Both the RTG DIR rules and IANA rules strongly advice against putting
fixed numeric values into allocation from existing registries. The
reason is obvious, in the time from you put the value in your document
until iet is ready for IESG review (which includes IANA review) someone
else might have been assigned tht value. This has happened and have
caused serious problems.
6 in table 2 hould be replaced with TBA (to be assigned).
Note: If you really want the value 6, we should go for an early
allocation as soon as we have the wg document.
Question:
In section 4 you say:
The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV MUST be defined as mandatory when a router
supporting the LSP Object and needs to use the extended flag field.
I don't really parse; are you saying that if it is present it should be
treated as mandatory?
If that is what you are saying, what does it change?
/Loa
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]
Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
