Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for your reply!
I agree with you and it is much better to align with SR-MPLS using
LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV.
Best Regards,
Quan
Original
From: DhruvDhody <[email protected]>
To: 熊泉00091065;
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年02月27日 13:06
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-15
Hi Quan, Cheng,
I think it is best if this is aligned with SR-MPLS i.e this draft-
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification/
That draft suggests using LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV.
We can move the IANA allocation to this document as it is nearing WGLC and the
SR-MPLS draft can simply reuse it! Thoughts?
Thanks!
Dhruv
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 9:16 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Cheng,
Thanks for your reply!
The suggested text maybe like this following shown.
" * V: When this bit is set to 1, the PCC should perform the SID verification
in validity of an Explicit Candidate Path as described in as per Section 5.1 of
[RFC9256]. When a segment list of an explicit candidate path be invalid, a
PCErr message should be sent. "
I am not sure about the last PCEP error part. Maybe the PCC should notify the
PCE when the candidate path is invalid.
Best Regards,
Quan
Original
From: ChengLi <[email protected]>
To: 熊泉00091065;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年02月20日 15:14
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-15
Hi Quan,
The usage is the same as defined in RFC9256. Do you have any suggested text?
Thanks,
Cheng
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 5:16 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-15
Dear PCE WG,
I support the WG LC of this draft. I reviewed this document in details and I
think it is useful and reasonable for SRv6 networks with PCEP extension.
Thanks the authors for the well-written draft and I have a suggestion for
section 4.3.1 with text "V: The "SID verification" bit usage is as per Section
5.1 of [RFC9256]." Maybe it is better to add more description on how to
use the V bit for SID verification.
Best Regards,
Quan
<<[Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-15
<<[email protected] Mon, 13 February 2023 17:38 UTCShow header <<Dear
PCE WG, This message starts a 2-week WG last call on
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-15 [1]. Please, be express any comments you
have about <<this document using the PCE mailing list. This WGLC will end on
Tuesday 28th February 2023. Thanks, Julien -- [1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-<<ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
