Hi WG, We have some pending issues with draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid, as part of the WGLC, that needs more inputs from the WG.
(1) Use of an explicit R flag to remove TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Olivier and others suggest using a new R flag to explicitly remove TE-PATH-BINDING. The current text requires all the TE-PATH-BINDING TLVs that apply from that point on to be encoded. A new R flag would have an impact on any existing implementation/deployment. Please confirm on the list (or to the chairs directly) if you object to the suggested change. (2) Use of the term "Binding Label/SID" Tom asked to use binding value instead. As per authors - Binding value is the term when referring to the specified value in the TLV - binding label/SID is used in the generic sense We also found label/SID or SID/label terms to be in use in multiple RFCs - RFC 8403, RFC 8660, RFC 8664, RFC 8665. Is the WG happy with the continued use of the term "binding label/SID"? (3) Flags related to SR Policy Adrian suggested removing them. There was no objection to this [1]; authors are requested to act on this. Please provide your inputs by 13th April, so that we can make progress with this I-D. Working copy and Diff can be found at [2] and [3]. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ODZGisT_Tq7aMmZ8QeE91FWHqIw/ [2] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-08.txt [3] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07.txt&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-08.txt
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
