Hi Martin Yes, we can assume that implementations will use RSVP-TE if they don't support this draft.
I think the text you quoted has fallen into the mistake of using normative language to specify what is already written in RFC 5440. Alvaro picked up another instance of this. How about we change to: If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, it will ignore the TLV in accordance with [RFC5440]. and: If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, it will ignore the TLV in accordance with [RFC5440], and will use RSVP-TE to set up the path. I have added a clarification to the second sentence above, as you requested. Cheers Jon -----Original Message----- From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com] Sent: 03 April 2018 10:54 To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-t...@ietf.org; Julien Meuric <julien.meu...@orange.com>; pce-cha...@ietf.org; julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org Subject: Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-09: (with COMMENT) Martin Vigoureux 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Document says: If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, it MUST ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). and: If a PCEP speaker does not recognize the PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV, it MUST ignore the TLV in accordance with ([RFC5440]). I am fine with this but it does not say anything, explicitly, on what shall be the selected signalling protocol. I guess it will be RSVP-TE because I guess we treat this situation in the same way as if there had been no TLV. But since I am guessing, I feel it wouldn't hurt to be explicit. On the assumption that my guesses are correct, what about adding, for example, the following sentence (or anything else you'd judge more appropriate): From a signalling protocol selection point of view, this situation is treated as if the ... TLV was absent. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
