Ramon, Thanks a lot for your feedback, this is very helpful.
Julien May. 09, 2017 - ramon.casel...@cttc.es: > On 9/5/17 12:18, Julien Meuric wrote: >> On the former, we must not forget that: >> - the use of PCNtf is consistent with the overload case in RFC 5440, >> - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce passed IESG review (as well as previous WG >> and IETF LCs), >> - draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce has early allocated codepoints. >> As a result, the PCNtf is not an open question in the current case. > (snip) > > Hi again Julien, > > Thanks for reminding me of the specific question and sorry for diverging > in multiple ways :) In view of your further comments and draft > constraints, my preference remains as follows: > > I still consider not being able to complete sync as a serious error and > I would suggest a MUST close the session, regardless of the actual > message to indicate such failure. > > Thanks > R. > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
