Hi Pavan, Thanks for participating in the adoption call. Some clarification questions...
Could you point the WG to the right reference in RSVP-TE? Is it RFC 5420? The Stateful-PCE-optional draft is a generic mechanism to mark whole PCEP objects as mandatory and optional to process. You are right that it doesn't cover local protection enforcement at the granularity of the per-attribute in the LSPA object. Please confirm if my understanding is correct? Note that there is a single flag defined in the LSPA object so far, so generalizing would help a future flag when and if it gets added. Could you suggest what change you would make to turn this procedure generic? Thanks! Dhruv On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 6:06 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email protected]> wrote: > > Support adoption! The draft addresses a hole in the existing protection > toolkit. > > It would however be useful to have a generic way of requesting or mandating > each LSP/path attribute (similar to RSVP LSP/HOP attributes). I haven't read > draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-optional, but I'm assuming that it doesn't cover > local protection enforcement. > > Regards, > -Pavan > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 8:41 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi WG, >> >> This email begins the WG adoption poll for >> draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-stone-pce-local-protection-enforcement-02 >> >> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons >> - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are >> you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to >> the list. >> >> This adoption poll will end on 9th Nov 2020 (Monday). >> >> Thanks! >> Dhruv & Julien >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
