Hi Robert, I agree, can the SR draft authors confirm (and make an update in the next revision)?
Regards, Dhruv On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk> wrote: > On 10/12/2015 07:58 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > > > In the stateful PCE draft [1], it says – > > The LSP Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt > > messages for RSVP-signaled LSPs. > > > > The SR draft [2] did not mention anything about LSP Identifier TLV. > > And in implementations that I am aware of, SR-TE LSP still uses the > LSP-Identifier TLV. Is that correct? (I personally think so!!) > > > > If yes, do you think there is a need to update – > > - [1] to say all LSPs (and not just RSVP-signaled). > > - Or [2] to say that LSP-Identifier TLV are also applicable to SR > and MUST be included. > > > > > The wording in stateful draft is meant to proscribe behavior for RSVP (as > that is what RFC5440 assumes), while allowing different setup mechanisms ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/) specify > their own LSP identifier format. > > In this spirit I think the SR draft should be updated to explicitly state > that SR reuses the same identifier format as RSVP (or whatever is > appropriate). > > Bye, > Robert > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
