Dear WG Sorry for the late reply.
I support WG adoption of this draft and am willing to work on the draft. Few comments after reviewing the draft. For SR-MPLS there are two label rangers SRLB and SRGB. So you may want to have a label control space TLV with different IANA registry for sub TLV for SRLB and SRGB. Similarly for SRV6 Func ID control space TLV maybe have a separate IANA sub TLV for LIB (Local ID block) and GIB (Global ID block). IANA registry is not mentioned for BSID label or ID control space TLV. Also this ID space concept should be applicable to RSVP-TE as well. Also today a stateful PCE manages the LSP or SRv6 path PCE ERO via PCE delegation, however does not allocate a new label or sid range to be distributed to all nodes. However now this draft manages the service sid range. In a SR PCE environment where this new ID capability is advertised, is there any impact in distribution of this new ID space to all nodes in rebuilding the SR forwarding plane state. This should be added to the considerations section. Kind Regards Gyan On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 7:11 AM Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote: > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for > draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space-16 > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-controlled-id-space/ > > 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 Monday 3rd June 2024. > > Please be more vocal during WG polls! > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
