I would like to get some clarification on the text below (understand that a
publication request has been made for the draft).

**
>From Section 5:

   When L-flag is not set and E-flag is not set then PCE SHOULD consider
   the protection eligibility as UNPROTECTED PREFERRED but MAY consider
   protection eligibility as UNPROTECTED MANDATORY constraint.

   When L-flag is not set and E-flag is set then PCE MUST consider the
   protection eligibility as UNPROTECTED MANDATORY constraint.



**
For the scenario where both the L-flag and the E-flag are not set (first
statement above), it seems okay to just say
that the "PCE MUST consider the protection eligibility as UNPROTECTED
PREFERRED". Is there a good reason
for both the "SHOULD (UNPROTECTED PREFERRED)" and "MAY (UNPROTECTED
MANDATORY)" clauses to
be included here (and keep things ambiguous)?

Regards,
-Pavan
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Reply via email to