Hi Cyril,
Thanks for your review and comments! It is a good point.
In my opinion, the TLV and the flag could be used in other PCEP Objects.
But if the defination of extended flags are different, then the TLV is
different.
I think that would be a new TLV, not the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV.
What
Hi, All:
The main updated contents of this draft are the followings:
1. Make clear again the key procedures to accomplish the Native IP TE
process(BGP Session Establish/Explicit Route Establish/BGP Prefix
Advertisement).
2.Update the definition of new introduced Object, for future extension.
3.Add
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.
Title : PCEP Extension for Native IP Network
Authors : Aijun Wang
Boris Khasanov
Support,
I have the following comments:
- The TLV is, as specified, is not forbidden in other PCEP Objects,
- It might be only defined as LSP object TLV and error code defined for
other cases, but it could also be allowed in any object and the extended
flags defined themselves within the cont
Hi WG,
Greg, Quan, and I discussed this offline and have this proposed text -
Note that, PCEP peers MAY encounter different length of the
LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV.
o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
of a length more than it currently supports or understands,
it will
