Hi Adrian, On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 2:36 PM Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Looks like I was somewhat right with “unpopular” 😊 > > > > Of course an (unpopular) option would be to tell the PCE WG that it is not > acceptable to use the RSVP-TE registries in this way, and let them know > that > if they want to specify paths for other uses they should use a new PCEP ERO > and RRO Object-Type and a new registry of subobjects. In many ways, that > would be so much cleaner, but it would break RFC 8664 implementations. > > > > Dhruv: (also addressing Huaimo), to me this is a bit overkill. We would > need to update a lot of documents. > > Of course if the situation changes nothing would stop us from moving in > this direction in future, but I dont think we are there yet! > > > > [AF] I don’t believe “a lot of documents” would need to be updated. > > You wouldn’t be changing the fact that it is an ERO. You’d keep the same > Object Class value. You’d just be changing the Object Type used in the case > of SR. > > So none of the legacy documents that refer to the inclusion of an ERO > would change. > > AFAICS it would be just 8664 that would be changed. > > > Dhruv: I misunderstood then! You were suggesting that the subobjects shared by PCEP and RSVP-TE still remain in the old registry and subobjects only used in PCEP go into a brand new registry! Hmmm.... But ERO could have subobjects from both registries and that would make it weird. That is why I thought we were suggesting a fresh new PCEP registry for all subobjects used in PCEP. I kinda still feel its overkill :) Thanks! Dhruv > [AF] I’m not lobbying for this (despite it being the “right thing to do”), > but let’s make any decisions based on a balanced view. > > > > Adrian >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
