Hi Ketan, Jumping directly to...
> >> 15 draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-15 >>> >>> 17 Abstract >>> >>> 19 Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any >>> 20 path. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) >>> 21 that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered >>> into >>> 22 an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend >>> 23 node. An SR Policy is made of one or more candidate paths. >>> >>> 25 This document specifies Path Computation Element Communication >>> 26 Protocol (PCEP) extension to associate candidate paths of the SR >>> 27 Policy. Additionally, this document updates [RFC8231] to allow >>> 28 stateful bringup of an SR LSP, without using PCReq/PCRep messages. >>> 29 This document is applicable to both Segment Routing over MPLS and to >>> 30 Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6). >>> >>> >>> >>> *[major] This document has the specifications that actually align the >>> PCEPextensions (e.g. RFC8664) for SR defined prior to this document to the * >>> *SR Policy architecture RFC9256. This should be the most important thing >>> to call out and that this spec formally updates RFC8664 and * >>> *RFC-draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6.* >>> >>> >> Dhruv: Happy for the authors to make it clearer but I don't think there >> is a need for a formal update. "Update" makes sense when there is some text >> in those RFCs that require changes. It is just a normal extension. From >> PCEP POV, SR-MPLS and SRv6 extensions for those path setup types exist on >> their own. If SR Policy is in use, then of course this document should be >> used. >> > > KT> What is being signaled via RFC8664 is something that is not defined in > SR Architecture but those specs are still called SR extensions. Putting a > formal "update" points readers that this document is what extends those > previous documents for SR Policy (and thereby SR) extensions. > > Dhruv: It is a classic discussion of what does "update" mean :) See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag Till things change, in PCE WG, we apply "update" only when there is a change in text in a previously published RFC. I personally would like to keep it that way. Authors can add text in abstract/introduction to make your point explicit. Thanks! Dhruv > >>
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
