Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for your suggestion! I agree with you to cite the
draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position as an example.
But I am not sure about the two wg drafts including
draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06 and draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03. As
far as I know, the last unassigned bit in LSP object is bit 0. It is not enough
for the two drafts.
Regards,
Quan
原始邮件
发件人：DhruvDhody
收件人：熊泉00091065;
抄送人：[email protected];
日 期 ：2021年02月22日 11:48
主 题 ：Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi Quan,
To clarify,
- draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid is asking for the allocation in the
existing LSP Object Flag Field, after this allocation, there won't be
any flags left.
- as an example of usage of the new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV, you should
site draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position!
Hope this helps you with the text in your draft!
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:06 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Adrian and Julien,
>
>
> Many thanks for your suggestions!
>
> I fully agree with you. The two wg drafts could be viewed as two
> implementations to use the flag carried in LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV.
>
> I will add informative references to those two drafts if necessary. And I
> also suggest those two drafts could add references to the
> draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quan
>
>
> >Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
>
> Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> Fri, 19 February 2021 16:05 UTCShow header
>
> >Ah, that's useful. Thanks Julien.
>
> >Makes this work more pressing.
>
> >Informative references to those two drafts would help focus the reviewer's
> >mind and might be handy when this draft overtakes those other two documents
> >and goes to the IESG.
>
> >Cheers,
> >Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 19 February
> 2021 14:38
> To: [email protected]: [email protected]: Re: [Pce] Adoption of
> draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
>
> >Hi Adrian,
>
> >Thank you for your feedback.
>
> >If evidence is needed, how about binding
> >label?https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06#section-11.2Note
> > it's also reused
> >inhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2Have
> > a nice week-end,
>
> >Julien
>
>
> On 18/02/2021 16:57, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time.
> >
> > I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone
> > needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably
> > possible.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pce <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> > Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48
> >
> > 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>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
> this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
