Much better, thank you! On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:06 PM Chengli (Cheng Li) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Murray, > > Sorry for my delay and thank you for your comments. Please review the > updated draft to see if it works. > > Thank you again! > Cheng > > Link: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-13 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-13 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 12:29 PM > To: The IESG <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on > draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-12: (with COMMENT) > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > In Section 1: > > This document specifies an extension to PCEP to manage of binding > label/SID for both SR and non-SR paths. > > I can't parse this sentence. > > The SHOULD in Section 8 seems strange; it offers the implementer a choice > of not allocating the binding label/SID when the PCC has met the stated > conditions. Why the choice? If the SHOULD is meant to cover the "unable > to allocate" case, I would argue that the SHOULD is not necessary because > there's no interoperability choice being exercised, and would instead > suggest: > > * To request that the PCE allocate the binding label/SID, a PCC MUST > set P=1, D=1, and include an empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCRpt > message. The PCE will attempt to allocate it and respond to the PCC > with > PCUpd message including the allocated binding label/SID in the TE- > PATH-BINDING TLV and P=1, D=1 in the LSP object. If the PCE is > unable to allocate, it MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = > TBD2 ("Binding label/SID failure") and Error-Value = TBD5 ("Unable > to allocate a new binding label/SID"). > > Thank you for including Section 9. > > > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
