Hi Samuel, The feeling at the time was to get away from the RSVP-TE-thinking for SR (and allow SR paths to be set up with minimal information needed). If I recall correctly, the "MAY" was the "compromise" struck at the time to allow SR paths to be set up without it but when use cases require these the LSP-IDENTIFIER-TLV can be included.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 3:02 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi PCE-chairs, > > > > Since there is no reasonable explanation provided in the mailing list – > does that mean that RFC is “broken” and we need Errata to fix it? E.g. by > making LSP identifiers TLV mandatory? > > > Errata would not be the right approach. See https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-errata-ietf-stream/ If the WG wants an explicit statement we would need to add this in an existing WG document or propose a new one. > Thanks, > Samuel > > > > *From:* Pce <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * Samuel Sidor (ssidor) > *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2023 1:29 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [Pce] LSP identifiers TLV optional for SR in RFC8664 > > > > Hi PCE WG, > > > > RFC8664 marked LSP identifiers TLV as optional: > > > > “The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV *MAY* be present for the above PST type.” > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8664.html#name-the-rp-srp-object > > > > But I don’t see any clarification in that RFC, how SR policy > endpoints/LSP-ID (may be needed for MBB) or any other field from that TLV > is supposed to be encoded in PCRpt message. > > > > I can imagine that SR policy endpoints can be retrieved from SR policy > association ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp#section-5.1), > but that draft is still not supported by many implementations and it is not > mentioned as MUST in RFC8664. > > > Specifically about endpoints, for PCC configured SR path you have it via local configuration and for the PCE-initiated, END-POINTS object could also be optionally included in PCInitiate message. > So now it seems to be completely valid based on RFC8664 to send PCRpt with > no LSP identifiers and no SR Policy association => with missing endpoints. > Is that intentional or am I missing any statement from RFC, which is > clarifying it? > > > IMHO It is intentional. See para 4 at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8281.html#section-5.3 about endpoints (and it is valid for SR as well). I see following options - - Do Nothing - Clarify "when" the LSP-IDENTIFIER-TLV MUST be included (could be in the operational clarification draft) - Update the text in RFC8664 to make LSP-IDENTIFIER-TLV "MUST" for SR Path type Thanks! Dhruv (as a WG participant) > I found some older discussion in mail archive: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/rGVwtH6u3eUCMbRyR-gV1Cv2zDU/ > > Where almost similar topic was discussed and where it was requested to > make it mandatory, but there were a few mails exchanged with no conclusion. > > > > One more comment – even statement about LSP-identifiers in RFC8664 seems > to be mentioned in wrong section - dedicated for RP/SRP object, which was > never used for LSP identifiers TLV (that is supposed to be included in LSP > object). > > > > Thanks, > > Samuel >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
