Hi Quan, Path segment reuses the bit (and does not define a new bit) see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2
Thanks! Dhruv On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:40 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
