Hi Dhruv
Thanks for comments, I can change it in the next draft.
There was just too many question on how the packet looks like and I felt
drawing the bytes could help.
Just to ensure you are looking for something like below:
Note: the questions I am getting is to give a rough view of how the packet
looks in different cases.
Common header
Lsp object with plsp-id = 1, Root= A, tree-id=y, instance-id = L1
Association object
P2MP SR policy ID with root=A, tree-ID=y
P2MP SR Policy name = “name”
…
CCI with cc-id =x , label 0
Path-attribute ero-path id =1 , backup-path id =2
SR-ERO ipv4-addr = NHD1, SID= d1
Etc…
Thanks
Hooman
From: Pce <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 10:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-03.txt
CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links
or opening attachments. See http://nok.it/ext for additional information.
Hi,
Just one quick comment! I remember making this point earlier as well, and if
the WG disagrees please let me know!
I am not a fan of the format used by the examples in this I-D (which are in the
form of PCEP packet structures) -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-03#section-7.2
It might be useful for someone debugging (well we also have tools that do that
way better and show results in a much more friendly way), but not for a general
reader of an RFC.
You will also note that this is not the usual style followed in the PCE WG
document. P2MP RFCs have examples in past, my request would be to follow the
same style and not to deviate -
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8623.html#section-6.6
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8306.html#section-3.10
Thanks!
Dhruv (as a WG participant)
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 1:19 AM
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the
IETF.
Title : PCEP extensions for p2mp sr policy
Authors : Hooman Bidgoli
Daniel Voyer
Saranya Rajarathinam
Anuj Budhiraja
Tarek Saad
Siva Sivabalan
Filename : draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-03.txt
Pages : 44
Date : 2023-03-09
Abstract:
SR P2MP policies are set of policies that enable architecture for
P2MP service delivery. This document specifies extensions to the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a
stateful PCE to compute and initiate P2MP paths from a Root to a set
of Leaves.
The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy/
There is also an htmlized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-03
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-03
Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
