Hi WG,
The early allocations are done.
Thanks!
Dhruv
PCEP-Objects registry (Section 9.1):
45 PATH-ATTRIB (TEMPORARY - registered 2022-05-09, expires 2023-05-09)
0: Reserved [draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05]
1: PATH-ATTRIB [draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05]
2-15: Unassigned
PCEP TLV Type Indicators registry (Section 9.2):
60 MULTIPATH-CAP (TEMPORARY - registered 2022-05-09, expires
2023-05-09) [draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05]
61 MULTIPATH-WEIGHT (TEMPORARY - registered 2022-05-09, expires
2023-05-09) [draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05]
62 MULTIPATH-BACKUP (TEMPORARY - registered 2022-05-09, expires
2023-05-09) [draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05]
63 MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH (TEMPORARY - registered 2022-05-09, expires
2023-05-09) [draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05]
PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values (Section 9.3):
Under 10, Reception of an invalid object:
38: Conflicting Path ID (TEMPORARY - registered 2022-05-09, expires
2023-05-09) [draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05]
Under 19, Invalid Operation:
20: Not supported path backup (TEMPORARY - registered 2022-05-09, expires
2023-05-09) [draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05]
21: Non-empty path (TEMPORARY - registered 2022-05-09, expires 2023-05-09)
[draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05]
Please see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:03 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> We received no objections and thus will be going ahead with the early
> allocation process.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 4:50 PM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi WG,
>>
>> We have received a request from the authors
>> of draft-ietf-pce-multipath for an early code point allocation for the
>> codepoints listed in
>>
>> - Section 9.1 PCEP Object
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05.html#section-9.1
>> - Section 9.2 PCEP TLV
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05.html#section-9.2
>> - Section 9.3 PCEP-Error
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-multipath-05.html#section-9.3
>>
>> RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:
>>
>> b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
>> handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
>> (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
>> in an Internet-Draft.
>> c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
>> there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
>> specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
>>
>> If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria or
>> believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other reason,
>> please send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining why. If the chairs
>> hear no objections by Thursday, April 14th, we will kick
>> off the early allocation request.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dhruv & Julien
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
