Hi Samuel,
Thanks for your quick reply!
Yes, I agree with you. The extensions may be applicable for
RSVP-TE,SR,SRv6,native IP, but I am not sure about it with BIER-TE and PCECC.
It works well for me to explicitly describe for each extension whether it is
generic or applicable to specific setup type.
Thanks for your work!
Best Regards,
Quan
Original
From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <[email protected]>
To: 熊泉00091065;
Cc: [email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年12月14日 16:27
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Quan,
(sorry I sent it before finishing mail)
Originally we listed explicitly only RSVP-TE and SR-TE and then we modified
based on comments from Dhruv to all setup types (attached mail).
Extensions covered in this draft were introduced to support required extensions
for CS policies, but at least some of those extensions (if specific section is
not describing something else) is potentially applicable to other setup types.
E.g. extensions from section 3.2 for blocking re-computation.
We can still drop that specific statement and explicitly describe for each
extension whether it is generic or applicable to specific setup type only.
Would that work for you?
Thanks,
Samuel
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 9:24 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Quan,
Originally we explicitly listed
From: Pce <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 7:53 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Dhruv,
I support the adoption of this draft. Thanks for the work from authors.
But I am confused about section 1 "PCEP extensions described in this document
are applicable to all Path Setup Types".
This draft mainly focus on the Circuit Style Policies and SR policy but path
setup types include RSVP-TE,SR,PCECC,SRv6, Native IP TE path and the newly
adopted BIER-TE.
I suggest that it is better to provide clarification about other path setup
types or remove this sentence.
Thanks,
Quan
<<Hi WG, <<This email begins the WG adoption poll for
<<draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/Should
this draft be adopted by the PCE <<WG? Please state your reasons - Why <</ Why
not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing <<to work
on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. <<Please respond
by Friday 15th Dec 2023. <<Please be more vocal during WG polls! <<Thanks!
<<Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
