Hi WG, Since there were no objections to Ketan's proposal to remove the X flag in the SRv6 PCE Capability sub-TLV [1], we can go ahead with it. Can the authors make an update to the I-D and remove the X-flag from the specification. Chairs/Shepherds will push the I-D forward once that is done.
Thanks! Dhruv & Julien [1] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6-18.html#section-4.1.1 On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 10:56 PM Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: > Hi WG, > > The author's have prepared a working copy based on the last set of > comments at https://github.com/muzixing/IETF-PCEP-SRV6. > > The only open issue is the matter of X-flag. On the mailing list and > during IETF 117, Ketan suggested that we remove the X-flag if there is no > known implementation that would get impacted by it. So far no one has come > forward with it. > > Mainly because this was late in the game, I proposed we could add a strong > warning, something like - > > A PCC that does not impose limits on MSD (by setting the X flag) could >> face IPv6 forwarding issues along the SRv6 path as the PCE would not >> have taken the various MSD values/capabilities of the SR nodes into >> consideration during path computation. The ability to set the X flag (and >> remove MSD limits) by the PCC MUST be disabled by default and SHOULD be >> enabled by the operator explicitly. > > > Ketan believes that the X flag is fundamentally wrong for SRv6 and thus > strongly prefers removal from the I-D. Does anyone in the WG feel that is > incorrect or has existing implementations that would get impacted? Please > let us know before Aug 31. We really need to make progress on this I-D > which has stalled for months. > > Thanks! > Dhruv >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
