or)
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 1:29 PM
To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] LSP identifiers TLV optional for SR in RFC8664
Hi PCE WG,
RFC8664 marked LSP identifiers TLV as optional:
“The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MAY be present for the above PST type.”
https://www.rfc-editor.
ce-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of
Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 1:29 PM
To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
Subject: [Pce] LSP identifiers TLV optional for SR in RFC8664
Hi PCE WG,
RFC8664 marked LSP identifiers TLV as optional:
“The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MA
ose a new one.
> Thanks,
> Samuel
>
>
>
> *From:* Pce *On Behalf Of * Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2023 1:29 PM
> *To:* pce@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Pce] LSP identifiers TLV optional for SR in RFC8664
>
>
>
> Hi PCE WG,
>
ry 9, 2023 1:29 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] LSP identifiers TLV optional for SR in RFC8664
Hi PCE WG,
RFC8664 marked LSP identifiers TLV as optional:
"The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MAY be present for the above PST type."
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8664.html#name-the-rp-srp-obj
Hi PCE WG,
RFC8664 marked LSP identifiers TLV as optional:
"The LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV MAY be present for the above PST type."
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8664.html#name-the-rp-srp-object
But I don't see any clarification in that RFC, how SR policy endpoints/LSP-ID
(may be needed for MBB)
