Hi Mike,
Few more questions which I did not mention on the mike (and repeat one which
is absent in the Notes):
1) I probably missed previous discussions ( I tried to search on
mailarchive but no success) , pls remind - what is the logic why
SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV is optional? IMO it is quite important to
define CPATH preference into same SR Policy.
2) Could INVALIDATION TLV usage be extended also for PCC -> PCE (i.e.
add this TLV to ASSOCIATION obj in PCRpt) case, to include some additional
information to signal PCE what something goes wrong with LSP? What do you
think?
3) s.7.4 currently says: " PCE sends a separate PCInitiate message for
every candidate path that it wants to create, or it sends multiple LSP
objects within a single PCInitiate message. " IMO, it needs to be re-phrased
(as I said verbally too) to some more concrete like : "PCE SHOIULD send a
separate PCInitiate message for every candidate path that it wants to
create, or it MAY send multiple LSP objects within a single PCInitiate
message." (or MAY for both cases if we want it to be relaxed)
4) Can we extend section 8.3 PCEP Errors to include some more detailed
Error types, for example, SL or CPATH instantiation failure (i.e. when 1st
label in SL is invalid) etc.? Idea is to provide PCE more detailed info
about forwarding plane issues.
Thank you.
SY,
Boris
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
