Hi Ramon,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:31 PM Ramon Casellas <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> I read the draft and I think it’s ready for publication.
>
>
>
> My only minor comment is that I was confused by the sentence “This
> document defines one mandatory TLV "VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV" and one
>
> new optional TLV "VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV”. Later on , the reference to
> RFC7470 is provided.
>
>
>
> I believe the intent is to state that the latter can be used (optional)
> but no further guidelines are given in this regard. It is slightly
> redundant but it does not hurt I guess.
>
> Alternatively, it would be beneficial to state what other information can
> be provided in the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV (my personal opinion is to try to
> avoid those)
>
>
>
I think this could be more clearly stated as -
OLD
This document defines one mandatory TLV "VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV" and one
new optional TLV "VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV"; apart from this TLV,
VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV can be used to carry arbitrary vendor specific
information.
o VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV: Used to communicate the VN Identifier.
o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor
specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470].
NEW
This document defines one new mandatory TLV "VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV";
apart from this TLV, the existing VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV [RFC7470]
can be optionally used as described below:
o VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV: Used to communicate the VN Name.
o VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: Used to communicate arbitrary vendor
specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470].
END
The VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV is used for VN Name only and any other
vendor-specific info goes in VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV. Does this work for
you?
Thanks!
Dhruv
> Regards
>
> Ramon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Pce <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Dhruv Dhody
> *Sent:* lunes, 14 de marzo de 2022 9:40
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Cc:* [email protected]; pce-chairs <
> [email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] WGLC for draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05
>
>
>
> Hi WG,
>
>
>
> The WGLC ends on Wednesday 16th March. The I-D is NOT long, please
> review/respond to the list.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dhruv
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 6:02 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Looks like the chairs had a "collision" in sending out the WGLC notice!
> Apologies! :)
>
>
>
> The only parameter that was different was when the WGLC ends, and let's
> pick the larger of the two dates i.e. WGLC will end on March 16, 2022.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dhruv
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 5:48 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a 3-weeks working group last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-vn-association-05 [1
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/>] to
> accommodate the upcoming draft submission deadline.
>
> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are opposed
> to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If
> you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and
> it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and
> nits are most welcome.
>
> The WG LC will end on Tuesday 15th March 2022.
>
> A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the
> last-call/adoption and help us unclog our queues :)
>
> Thanks,
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/
>
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
