We (authors) are working through the issues identified during the WGLC [1] and would like to seek further input from the WG on the following comment from Diego [2] regarding the scope of the draft.
** *Now, I think that this PCEP extension should not be limited to RSVP-TE LSPs only. I know that colour is inherent to SR-Policy/CP and that PCEP extensions defined in draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp already cover this aspect, but there are SR-TE implementations out there that follow RFCs 8231, 8281, and 8664 that may want to add support for colour without having to implement support for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp.* ** We would like to accommodate the above change and update the "Introduction" as follows: ** * This document introduces extensions to PCEP to carry the color* * attribute associated with paths that are setup using RSVP-TE* * ([RFC8408]) or Segment Routing (SR) ([RFC8664]) or any other path* * setup type supported under the stateful PCE model. The only* * exception where the extensions defined in this document are not used* * for carrying the color attribute is when an SR Policy path is setup* * using the extensions defined in* * [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]. For these SR Policy paths,* * the associated color is already included as part of the policy* * identifier encoding.* ** Are there any concerns with making this change? Regards, -Pavan (on behalf of the authors) [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QDetx1Sn3LftKjcvSIRjWop82UI/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/r7VCoYKfd2fy5l8dF999Spej04U/
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
