Hi, I am glad the companion document [0] is on the SPRING agenda. It is not clear if the plan is to move it to SPRING WG with a change in draft name and make it fully protocol agnostic by removing any details specific to PCE.
Please go over the minutes of 113 [1] and provide an update on the list. That would help in moving the discussion forward. Few comments - - I suggest removing figure 1 and do not assign bit positions (leave that for the IANA). This is no longer aligned as a new document ahead in the publication queue can request flags (in this case the recent update of stateful GMPLS I-D did just that) - Since PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV is useful only for delegated LSP, encoding it in an LSP object might be a better option than LSPA (which is allowed for PCReq as well). It is also easier to check the delegate flag in the LSP object and add text to ignore the TLV if it is not set. Hope this helps! Thanks! Dhruv [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schmutzer-pce-cs-sr-policy/ [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-113-pce/
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
