Hi Dhruv, "Default Behavior (TLV present, no flags set)” is P=0 and F=0. Or am I missing something? I planned to keep original statement indicating what should happen if TLV is not included at all, so list is covering only cases with TLV included.
Thanks, Samuel From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 30 October 2025 at 11:36 To: Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions Hi Samuel, On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 10:09 AM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dhruv, > > For “Dhruv: Yes! How about add an additional table to make it extra clear > and readable (only a minor suggestion) “. > > I void like to avoid having table (especially if it is supposed to have > all combinations to make sure that we will not end up listing all > combinations in the future if more flags will be added), but I can still > try to change that section 4.2 to make it more structured, e.g. by > converting to bullets, what about something like this: > > … > The PATH-RECOMPUTATION TLV defines the recomputation behavior for an LSP > based on a default rule that can be further restricted by the P and F > flags, as follows: > > - Default Behavior (TLV present, no flags set): The PCE MUST NOT > recompute the path in response to various triggers if the current path > remains valid and meets all constraints (E.g. topology updates, > periodic reoptimization timers, or changes in the state of other LSPs)
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
