Hi Eric, As a shepherd, I can address your 2nd concern without waiting for the authors.
For both defined TLVs, the backward compatibility is addressed by the last sentence of sections 3 and 4: " If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-xxx TLV, it MUST ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440])." The exact wording will be updated to address other comments, e.g.: - MUST -> will, - Make it explicit that an ignored TLV is similar to an absent TLV, and implies the only existing method before this I-D, i.e. X == RSVP-TE signaling (cf. Martin's comment). Thanks, Julien Apr. 04, 2018 - e...@rtfm.com: > Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Please expand RP and SRP on first use. > > What is the backward compatibility story here? I.e., say I only support method > X and the peer doesn't know about this TLV at all? How will it behave? > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
