Hi,
In draft draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07 Section 4 Page 7, it is
mentioned:
No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If a future
application requires advertising additional PCE information in IS-IS, this will
not be carried in the CAPABILITY TLV.
-Is there a technical reasoning behind this decision?
-I would also change the last two words : CAPABILITY TLV to IS-IS Router
Capability TLV ([IS-IS-CAP]) to avoid any confusion with the PCE-CAP-FLAGS
sub-TLV :)
In draft draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-ospf-07 Section 4 Page 7, it is
mentioned:
No additional sub-TLVs will be added to the PCED TLV in the future. If a future
application requires advertising additional PCE information in OSPF, this will
not be carried in the Router Information LSA.
-Same question here.
Warm Regards,
Meral
Selon Adrian Farrel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt
> has recently been posted. The last couple of revisions addressed comments
> raised by the IESG and by the IGP working group chairs, etc.
>
> This is a call to you for a further review of the I-D.
>
> We'll run with a two week deadline to 28th September.
>
> Many thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
