Hi Dhruv and all: *Section 7 states:* Section 4 includes a case where a specified value for the binding label/SID is requested to be allocated by the PCC.
*Section 4 (of v5) states:* If a PCE requires a PCC to allocate a specific binding value, it may do so by sending a PCUpd or PCInitiate message containing a TE-PATH- BINDING TLV. Could we please add a bit more clarity to the motivation for the proposed change ? Also, we may want to indicate that how a PCE figures out the available labels on a PCC, etc, is outside the scope of this ID. Thanks, Siva On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 8:41 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
