Hi WG,
Greg, Quan, and I discussed this offline and have this proposed text -
Note that, PCEP peers MAY encounter different length of the
LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV.
o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
of a length more than it currently supports or understands,
it will simply ignore the bits beyond that length.
o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of
a length less than the one supported by the implementation,
it will consider the bits beyond the length to be unset.
Thoughts?
Dhruv (as a WG member)
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:34 AM Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
