Dhruv, Hi! Yes, RFC5420 is the correct reference. I was referring to how the “Attribute Flags TLV” is processed when present in the LSP_ATTRIBUTES and LSP_REQUIRED_ATTRIBUTES objects.
A similar approach can be employed for the PCEP LSPA object. This would need us to (a) Introduce a new flags TLV and (b) Introduce a new LSPA_REQUIRED/LSPA_ENFORCED object that can carry this TLV when needed. This can be done now or later when there are more flags defined. Regards, -Pavan On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 8:03 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
