Hi WG, Authors, As part of the handling of RTGDIR comments [1] for the PCECC I-D [2], it was discovered that it is a better idea to handle the Binding SID allocation by the PCE in the BSID I-D [3]. Julien and I agree.
Also, it makes sense to move the new P-flag in the LSP object here (from path segment WG I-D [4]). Cheng and I have this proposed update - Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-05&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06.txt Please let us know if anyone has any concerns with this approach. This draft is in our WG LC Queue [5]. Thanks! Dhruv/Cheng [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/4n6FpBoDHjnGppKH4bcVotUu_hE/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller/ [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid/ [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment/ [5] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/pce/wiki/WikiStart#WGLastCallQueue _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
