Hi Siva, Mike, I have made an update to add more clarity in section 7.
Commit: https://github.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/commit/5c7e4625e8491fdece9007bec076a654bbeeaf93 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 Just to clarify, this is not a new requirement, all that is being done is moving the text from the PCECC I-D (which was already in post-WGLC) to the BSID I-D. It is also marked that this feature is optional and used only in the case the implementation also supports PCECC operations and no change is made to any existing operations that could lead to any backward compatibility issues. Thanks! Dhruv (as a WG member) On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:43 PM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m also concerned about having PCECC as a requirement for anything in that > draft. It would break backward compatibility. > > > > Thanks, > > Mike. > > > > From: Pce <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Siva Sivabalan > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2021 7:13 PM > To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; pce-chairs > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the BSID > draft > > > > 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
