Hi Pavan, Dhruv, Samuel,
Correct – that text is trying to steer implementors to use unprotected
preferred but is keeping the option of unprotected mandatory for backwards
compatibility.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/4EX28antvCp_2CY--7RJmCvR-jo/
discusses it a bit from a different
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 : Inter Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Procedures.
Authors : Stephane
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 : Extension for Stateful PCE to allow Optional
Processing of PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Objects
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 : PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for
Using PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) for Segment Routing
Hi Dhruv, Vishnu,
“I think we can differentiate between an implementation that supports this
extension - that MUST use UNPROTECTED PREFERRED whereas a legacy implementation
would handle it as per their understanding of RFC 5440 which could be
UNPROTECTED PREFERRED or UNPROTECTED MANDATORY.”
Hi Pavan,
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:46 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
wrote:
> Dhruv, Hi!
>
> Thanks for the response! Please see inline..
>
> Regards,
> -Pavan
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:03 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
>> Hi Pavan,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:02 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <
>>
