Hi Pavan, On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:02 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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)? > > Dhruv: If I recall correctly (and the authors can confirm that), this was done for the sake of backward compatibility. I remember it being discussed on the mailing list as well. If a PCEP speaker does not understand this document (and thus ignores the E flag) and L flag is set to 0, would behave as per RFC 5440 where the concept of enforcement is undefined and some implementation could understand it to be handled as UNPROTECTED MANDATORY instead of UNPROTECTED PREFERRED. And the text allows for it. Happy to get additional eyes and confirm if it still makes sense! Thanks! Dhruv > Regards, > -Pavan > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
