Adrian, Hi!
Thanks for bringing this to the WG's attention!
I don't think this issue warrants anything other than (1) from your list of
actions.
This isn't much of an issue from a deployment/operational point of view. If
an RSVP-TE implementation chose to add (either deliberately or erroneously)
Hi Cheng,
Thanks for your reply!
The suggested text maybe like this following shown.
" * V: When this bit is set to 1, the PCC should perform the SID verification
in validity of an Explicit Candidate Path as described in as per Section 5.1 of
[RFC9256]. When a segment list of an
Hi Adrian,
As a WG participant...
Thanks for bringing this up to the WG attention
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 2:14 AM Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You may recall that, back in the early days, the plan for PCEP was that it
> was used to determine the paths that were to be signalled in
Hi Adrian,
It seems better to use a new PCEP ERO and RRO Object-Type and a new
registry of subobjects.
As you mentioned, that would be so much cleaner. In addition, it would be
much more concise.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
-Original Message-
From: Pce On Behalf Of
Hi,
Here is my WG last call review of this document. Thanks to the authors
for all of the work that has gone in.
[A note for the chairs: Was this last call shared with SPRING?]
Cheers,
Adrian
===
Abstract
The Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) architecture
In fact, although
Hi,
You may recall that, back in the early days, the plan for PCEP was that it
was used to determine the paths that were to be signalled in MPLS-TE and to
report on those paths.
To that end, the ERO and RRO in PCEP messages follow the same construction
as those used in RSVP-TE. That is, they are
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the
IETF.
Title : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extension for Path Segment in Segment Routing
