Dear All, I've read the draft and support it being adopted by the PCE WG. The draft provides an elegant future-proof solution to the real problem. I have one suggestion for a future revision of this document. You've already considered backward compatibility between implementations that support the new TLV and ones that do not. I think we can envision a situation when implementations with, for example, 32 bit-long LSP Extended Flags field interwork with implementations that use 64 bit-long field. Such a situation might be far away today but it might help developers later. Also, might be helpful to explicitly note that the value in the Length field equals the length of the LSP Extended Flags field in octets (some bytes used to be only seven-bit-long).
Regards, Greg On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by > defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing > sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field > > 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. > > Please respond by Monday 15th Feb. > > 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
