Hi Lars, John and Dhruv,
Thanks for all your discussions and suggestions! I have updated the draft as
Lars' comments in version -08.
I revised the texts in line with RFC2119 terminology as Lars' DISCUSS
suggested.
A sentence was added in Section 3.1, paragraph 7 as Lars' COMMENT with "The
LSP Extended Flags field SHOULD use the minimal amount of space needed to
encode the flagbits."
I revised the text in Section 3.2, paragraph 2 as Lars' COMMENT with " Flags
that an implementation is not supporting MUST be set to zero on transmission. "
A comma was added in Section 3.1, paragraph 2 as Lars' Nits with "Currently, no
bits are assigned."
Hope that will help to improve this draft and let me know if you have other
suggestions.Thanks,Quan
From: JohnScudder <[email protected]>
To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>;
Cc: Lars Eggert <[email protected]>;The IESG
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date: 2022年10月22日 01:14
Subject: Re: Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi Dhruv,
The counterpoint is that if tradition was enough to forbid us from adopting
small improvements, there’d be a lot less progress. But it’s not a big deal, we
can leave it to the discretion of the WG and authors. Regardless, a new version
is needed to address Lars’s DISCUSS — I think all the necessary conversation
has taken place, we just need version 08 with the agreed changes.
Thanks,
—John
> On Oct 21, 2022, at 12:43 AM, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks John and Lars!
>
> I wonder though if it is a good idea to change in this one place, when every
> other PCEP RFCs (including the base RFC 5440) uses -
>
> Unassigned flags MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
> ignored on receipt.
>
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 9:04 PM Lars Eggert <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2022-10-20, at 16:51, John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I read this comment differently. Here’s what I took it to mean. In the
> > clause "Unassigned flags MUST be set to zero on transmission”, if you read
> > that in the narrowest possible way, it might require an implementation to
> > know what flags are unassigned, so that it can set them to zero on
> > transmission. If the clause were changed to “Flags unsupported by the
> > implementation MUST be set to zero on transmission” I think that would be
> > responsive to (how I read) the comment. The same point would apply to
> > Section 3.1.
> >
> > That’s just my reading of course and Lars should clarify as needed.
>
> This is exactly what I was trying to express, thanks.
>
> Lars
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
