Hi Ran, Thanks for your comments.
Correct, we are just introducing new flag in existing TLV. Original title seems to be aligned with other drafts introducing new flags in that TLV, e.g.: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-10#name-the-lsp-extended-flag-tlv but I can still rename it to follow your suggestion and it seems to be more accurate (“New Flag in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAGS TLV”). For “Type” and “Length” fields – those are based on older draft version of RFC9357 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07 ). The plan was to introduce TLV format after assigning IANA codepoint for new flag allocated and as part of TLV format, we are usually describing content of individual fields in that TLV (including type and length). I can drop them for now, since codepoints were not allocated and TLV format is not included. For “E-flag” – I agree, I can drop it as it does not make sense to list all flags already allocated in that TLV. Originally we mentioned that draft only to explicitly indicate that there are other drafts, which are trying to allocate fields in that TLV. Regards, Samuel From: chen....@zte.com.cn <chen....@zte.com.cn> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2023 8:59 AM To: d...@dhruvdhody.com; pce@ietf.org; draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05 Hi WG I surport the adoption of this draft, it is very useful. but I have a few minor (non-blocking) comments: 3.1. LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV The LSP object is defined in Section 7.3 of [RFC8231], and the new extended flags TLV is defined in [RFC9357]. This draft reuse the new extended flags TLV is defined in [RFC9357], and only defines a new flag,right? If so, it is recommended that the title be changed to "New Flag in the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAGS TLV" which is more appropriate. I am confused when I see the description below in the draft: [cid:image001.png@01DA2E70.4A875950] In addition, Not only [I-D.peng-pce-entropy-label-position] has defined the E-flag, IANA has already assigned multiple LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Flag Field , see link: https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-extended-flag-tlv-flags. It is recommended to delete the description of E-flag. Best Regards, Ran Original From: DhruvDhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> To: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> <pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>>; Cc: draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org> <draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org>>; Date: 2023年12月01日 18:33 Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-05. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/ Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. Please respond by Friday 15th Dec 2023. Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks! Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
