Hi Dhruv, I also agree with Mike. Let's not make BSID ID dependent on PCECC capability.
Thanks, Siva On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:58 AM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dhruv, > > My concern is about a PCC that DOES support PCE assigned BSID, but that > DOES NOT support PCECC. Your latest diff still says that PCECC capability > is needed for this PCC to be able to make use of PCE assigned BSID. > > IMHO it should not be necessary to bring in support for PCECC, which is > quite a large extension, just to allow a PCE to send down a BSID label to > the PCC. PCE may have some other mechanism to figure out whether a BSID > label is allocated or not. > > Thanks, > Mike. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 11:38 AM > To: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <[email protected]> > Cc: Siva Sivabalan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; pce-chairs <[email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Pce] Moving PCE Allocation of Binding Label/SID to the BSID > draft > > 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
