Hi Dhruv, While I prefer this would be isolated (clearer to find, reference, interpret etc..) I can appreciate it’s not technically necessary, so that would be okay to me. I proposed some text below for section 7.1.2. Thoughts?
... ... 7.1.2. Router-ID TLVs The Router-ID TLV described in this document is generic and not specific to any specific path-setup type or use case. One or more Router-ID TLV MAY be carried in the OPEN object and does not require the exchange of the capability described in Section 5.3. As specified in Section 5.4, for the purposes of this document, the PCC SHOULD advertise TE mapping information by including the Router-ID TLVs within the OPEN object. … ... Thanks! Andrew From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, January 8, 2026 at 12:52 AM To: Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11 (Ends 2026-01-26) CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi Andrew, As a WG participant... On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 4:42 AM Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Authors, I have a question which I realize is a bit late in the process: was it considered to move out carrying of Router IDs in the Open Object (Section 5.4 + 7.1.2) to be in an independent document? I find that function would be quite useful independent of any specific dataplane or path setup type as a generic capability in PCEP. Dhruv: This should be possible. Another approach could be to explicitly state that these are generic and thus applicable beyond PCECC-SR even though it is the PCECC-SR document that defines and uses them first? Thoughts? Thanks! Dhruv Thanks Andrew From: Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 at 2:00 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11 (Ends 2026-01-26) CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext<http://nok.it/ext> for additional information. Hi WG, This email marks the start of the WG last call for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr/ Please indicate your support or concern for this draft on the mailing list. If you are opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest version and that it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review comments and nits are most welcome. This Working Group Last Call ends on Monday, 2026-01-26. A general reminder to the WG to be more vocal during the last-call/adoption. Thanks, Dhruv & Julien The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr/ There is also an HTML version available at: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11.html A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr-11
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
