This thread is an example of why some of us have ranted *endlessly* at the PC working group to STOP PUTTING EXPLICIT VALUES FOR CODEPOINTS IN INTERNET-DRAFTS. Just don't do it. Stop. Now. Take them out? Why do you do it? It does not help anyone. It makes things bad. I am sure I even recall the chairs asking editors to take them out. Why do we have WG drafts with explicit codepoints in them. I am beyond frustrated with this :-) Adrian From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 04 March 2017 03:26 To: Girish Birajdar; draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizati...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09.txt Hi Girish, (1) You are comparing two different things - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09#section-8.3 is for bit inside the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV i.e. bit no 26 where as https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-08#section-9.3 is for the TLV Type i.e TLV Type = 26 We have done our best to keep the codepoints align across all stateful PCE drafts. But note that these are only suggestions and final authority is with IANA. (2) The IANA early allocation [RFC7120] is the best way to make sure implementations use the right code points with no confusion. Chairs have done that for the stateful PCE, SR, Initiated and path setup type drafts. Those are visible at - http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml. As this draft goes to the RFC editor, the IANA would block the codepoints for this draft too. (3) There is a draft asking for experimental code points in PCEP - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-02 ; do review and suggest if you find that useful for early experimentation of ideas. Thanks! Dhruv From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Girish Birajdar Sent: 04 March 2017 02:20 To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizati...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09.txt Dear Authors, Suggested TLV values conflict with in other PCE drafts. I could find 2 conflicts, there may be more. Is there a way the PCE WG can manage TLV values across drafts? For compatibility between vendors and different software release from same vendor - keeping these values unchanged is critical. 8.3. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV TBD11 (suggested value 26) TRIGGERED-INITIAL-SYNC This document TBD12 (suggested value 28) TRIGGERED-RESYNC This document
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-08#section-9.4 - SR-PCE-CAPABILITY is 26 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-03#section-6.1 PATH-SETUP-TYPE is 28 Thanks, Girish On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:08 AM, <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element of the IETF. Title : Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE Authors : Edward Crabbe Ina Minei Jan Medved Robert Varga Xian Zhang Dhruv Dhody Filename : draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2017-02-28 Abstract: A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) has access to not only the information disseminated by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its computation. The additional Label Switched Path (LSP) state information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their interactions. This requires a state synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the network, PCE and path computation clients (PCCs), and between cooperating PCEs. The basic mechanism for state synchronization is part of the stateful PCE specification. This document presents motivations for optimizations to the base state synchronization procedure and specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations-09 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ 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
