Hi Samuel,
Thanks a lot for your responses. It looks good.
Best Regards,
Ran
Original
From: SamuelSidor(ssidor) <[email protected]>
To: 陈然00080434;
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年12月14日 16:51
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi Ran,
Thanks for your comments.
Correct, we are just introducing new flag in existing TLV. Original title seems
to be aligned with other drafts introducing new flags in that TLV, e.g.:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10#name-the-lsp-extended-flag-tlv
but I can still rename it to follow your suggestion and it seems to be more
accurate (“New Flag in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAGS TLV”).
For “Type” and “Length” fields – those are based on older draft version of
RFC9357
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07 ).
The plan was to introduce TLV format after assigning IANA codepoint for new
flag allocated and as part of TLV format, we are usually describing content of
individual fields in that TLV (including type and length). I can drop them for
now, since codepoints were not allocated and TLV format is not included.
For “E-flag” – I agree, I can drop it as it does not make sense to list all
flags already allocated in that TLV. Originally we mentioned that draft only to
explicitly indicate that there are other drafts, which are trying to allocate
fields in that TLV.
Regards,
Samuel
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:59 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of
draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
Hi WG
I surport the adoption of this draft, it is very useful. but I have a few minor
(non-blocking) comments:
3.1. LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
The LSP object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231], and the new extended
flags TLV is defined in [RFC9357]. This draft reuse the new extended flags TLV
is defined in [RFC9357], and only defines a new flag,right? If so, it is
recommended that the title be changed to "New Flag in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAGS
TLV" which is more appropriate.
I am confused when I see the description below in the draft:
In addition, Not only [I-D.peng-pce-entropy-label-position] has defined the
E-flag, IANA has already assigned multiple LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Flag Field ,
see link:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-extended-flag-tlv-flags.
It is recommended to delete the description of E-flag.
Best Regards,
Ran
Original
From: DhruvDhody <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>;
Cc: [email protected]
<[email protected]>;
Date: 2023年12月01日 18:33
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
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
