I’ve addressed the comments received so far in the following version of the draft: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-color-01.txt
In specific, following is the text from the updated draft that addresses Dhruv’s comment: “ Section 4 defines the format of the color TLV. The placement of the TLV depends on the purpose for which it is used. For RSVP's service mapping use case discussed in this document, the color TLV is carried in the LSP Object defined in [RFC8231]. “ Believe the document is now ready for WG adoption. -- Balaji Rajagopalan From: Pce <[email protected]> on behalf of Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 12 November 2021 at 10:46 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [Pce] draft-rajagapolan-pce-pcep-color-00 -- Placement of the color TLV [External Email. Be cautious of content] Dhruv had a question in today's session on where the color TLV needs to be placed. The placement of the TLV depends on the use-case. For the RSVP-TE service-mapping use-case discussed in this document, the TLV would be placed in the LSP object. For the multipath use-case, it would be in PATH-ATTRIB object. Section 3 of the document does says this: The actual color value itself is carried in a newly defined TLV in the LSP Object defined in [RFC8231<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8231__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Qqn-6T0hVcuzUnfP4hnoiLJ2pb056ht_Ggk0EX_8Npz71_pux2l0WPMrEyilJcA_$>]. This needs to move to Section 2. Regards, -Pavan Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
