Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
+1 Regards, Jeff > On Feb 22, 2021, at 14:13, Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) > wrote: > > +1 thanks Julien, also support the document. > > Did not recognize that binding label and path segment we're requesting bits > as well. Seems like this draft is pre-empting the inevitable exhaustion at a > good time. > > Thanks > Andrew > > > On 2021-02-19, 11:05 AM, "Pce on behalf of Adrian Farrel" > wrote: > >Ah, that's useful. Thanks Julien. > >Makes this work more pressing. > >Informative references to those two drafts would help focus the reviewer's > mind and might be handy when this draft overtakes those other two documents > and goes to the IESG. > >Cheers, >Adrian > >-Original Message- >From: julien.meu...@orange.com > Sent: 19 February 2021 14:38 > To: adr...@olddog.co.uk >Cc: pce@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > >Hi Adrian, > >Thank you for your feedback. > >If evidence is needed, how about binding label? > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06#section-11.2 >Note it's also reused in >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2 > >Have a nice week-end, > >Julien > > >>On 18/02/2021 16:57, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time. >> >> I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone >> needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably >> possible. >> >> Adrian >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody >> Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48 >> >> Hi WG, >> >> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 >> >> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by >> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing >> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field >> >> 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 15th Feb. >> >> Thanks! >> Dhruv & Julien >> >> ___ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> >> ___ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> > > > > _ > >Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > >This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; >they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. >As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. >Thank you. > >___ >Pce mailing list >Pce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
+1 thanks Julien, also support the document.
Did not recognize that binding label and path segment we're requesting bits as
well. Seems like this draft is pre-empting the inevitable exhaustion at a good
time.
Thanks
Andrew
On 2021-02-19, 11:05 AM, "Pce on behalf of Adrian Farrel"
wrote:
Ah, that's useful. Thanks Julien.
Makes this work more pressing.
Informative references to those two drafts would help focus the reviewer's
mind and might be handy when this draft overtakes those other two documents and
goes to the IESG.
Cheers,
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: julien.meu...@orange.com
Sent: 19 February 2021 14:38
To: adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi Adrian,
Thank you for your feedback.
If evidence is needed, how about binding label?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06#section-11.2
Note it's also reused in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2
Have a nice week-end,
Julien
On 18/02/2021 16:57, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time.
>
> I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone
> needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably
> possible.
>
> Adrian
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
>
> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by
> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing
> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field
>
> 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 15th Feb.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
_
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu
ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi WG,
Thanks to all who responded to the adoption poll. We have support to
adopt this as a WG item. Please continue to provide your comments as
the document moves through the WG process.
Authors, please post a -00 version
'draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-00' with only the name/date change,
and be sure to set the "replaces" option during submission ("extended"
is added in the file name for clarity).
Please post the -01 version that handles the comments received during
the adoption call as well.
Thanks!
PCE Chairs
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:58 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
> We *need* to hear from more of you before taking a call on adoption. It is a
> straightforward "house-keeping" document, but we need to see explicit
> expressions of support (and comments).
>
> We are extending the call till Friday, Feb 19th. Please respond with your
> support (or not) for this adoption.
>
> Regards,
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>>
>> Hi WG,
>>
>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
>>
>> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by
>> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing
>> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.
>>
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field
>>
>> 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 15th Feb.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi Dhruv, Thanks for your suggestion! I agree with you to cite the draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position as an example. But I am not sure about the two wg drafts including draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06 and draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03. As far as I know, the last unassigned bit in LSP object is bit 0. It is not enough for the two drafts. Regards, Quan 原始邮件 发件人：DhruvDhody 收件人：熊泉00091065; 抄送人：pce@ietf.org; 日 期 ：2021年02月22日 11:48 主 题 ：Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Hi Quan, To clarify, - draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid is asking for the allocation in the existing LSP Object Flag Field, after this allocation, there won't be any flags left. - as an example of usage of the new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV, you should site draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position! Hope this helps you with the text in your draft! Thanks! Dhruv On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:06 AM wrote: > > Hi Adrian and Julien, > > > Many thanks for your suggestions! > > I fully agree with you. The two wg drafts could be viewed as two > implementations to use the flag carried in LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. > > I will add informative references to those two drafts if necessary. And I > also suggest those two drafts could add references to the > draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag. > > > Regards, > > Quan > > > >Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > Adrian Farrel Fri, 19 February 2021 16:05 UTCShow header > > >Ah, that's useful. Thanks Julien. > > >Makes this work more pressing. > > >Informative references to those two drafts would help focus the reviewer's > >mind and might be handy when this draft overtakes those other two documents > >and goes to the IESG. > > >Cheers, > >Adrian > > -Original Message----- > From: julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: 19 February > 2021 14:38 > To: adr...@olddog.co.ukcc: pce@ietf.orgSubject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of > draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > >Hi Adrian, > > >Thank you for your feedback. > > >If evidence is needed, how about binding > >label?https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06#section-11.2Note > > it's also reused > >inhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2Have > > a nice week-end, > > >Julien > > > On 18/02/2021 16:57, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time. > > > > I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone > > needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably > > possible. > > > > Adrian > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody > > Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48 > > > > Hi WG, > > > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03> > > This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by > > defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing > > sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field> > > 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 15th Feb. > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv & Julien > > > > ___ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce> > > ___ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce> > > > _ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > the
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi Quan, To clarify, - draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid is asking for the allocation in the existing LSP Object Flag Field, after this allocation, there won't be any flags left. - as an example of usage of the new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV, you should site draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position! Hope this helps you with the text in your draft! Thanks! Dhruv On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:06 AM wrote: > > Hi Adrian and Julien, > > > Many thanks for your suggestions! > > I fully agree with you. The two wg drafts could be viewed as two > implementations to use the flag carried in LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. > > I will add informative references to those two drafts if necessary. And I > also suggest those two drafts could add references to the > draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag. > > > Regards, > > Quan > > > >Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > Adrian Farrel Fri, 19 February 2021 16:05 UTCShow header > > >Ah, that's useful. Thanks Julien. > > >Makes this work more pressing. > > >Informative references to those two drafts would help focus the reviewer's > >mind and might be handy when this draft overtakes those other two documents > >and goes to the IESG. > > >Cheers, > >Adrian > > -Original Message----- > From: julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: 19 February > 2021 14:38 > To: adr...@olddog.co.ukcc: pce@ietf.orgSubject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of > draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > >Hi Adrian, > > >Thank you for your feedback. > > >If evidence is needed, how about binding > >label?https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06#section-11.2Note > > it's also reused > >inhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2Have > > a nice week-end, > > >Julien > > > On 18/02/2021 16:57, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time. > > > > I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone > > needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably > > possible. > > > > Adrian > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody > > Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48 > > > > Hi WG, > > > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03> > > This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by > > defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing > > sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field> > > 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 15th Feb. > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv & Julien > > > > ___ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce> > > ___ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce> > > > _ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > > > > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi Adrian and Julien, Many thanks for your suggestions! I fully agree with you. The two wg drafts could be viewed as two implementations to use the flag carried in LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. I will add informative references to those two drafts if necessary. And I also suggest those two drafts could add references to the draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag. Regards, Quan >Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Adrian Farrel Fri, 19 February 2021 16:05 UTCShow header >Ah, that's useful. Thanks Julien. >Makes this work more pressing. >Informative references to those two drafts would help focus the reviewer's >mind and might be handy when this draft overtakes those other two documents >and goes to the IESG. >Cheers, >Adrian -Original Message- From: julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: 19 February 2021 14:38 To: adr...@olddog.co.ukcc: pce@ietf.orgSubject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 >Hi Adrian, >Thank you for your feedback. >If evidence is needed, how about binding >label?https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06#section-11.2Note > it's also reused >inhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2Have > a nice week-end, >Julien On 18/02/2021 16:57, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time. > > I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone > needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably > possible. > > Adrian > > -Original Message- > From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody > Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48 > > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03> > This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by > defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing > sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field> > 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 15th Feb. > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce> > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce> _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Ah, that's useful. Thanks Julien. Makes this work more pressing. Informative references to those two drafts would help focus the reviewer's mind and might be handy when this draft overtakes those other two documents and goes to the IESG. Cheers, Adrian -Original Message- From: julien.meu...@orange.com Sent: 19 February 2021 14:38 To: adr...@olddog.co.uk Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Hi Adrian, Thank you for your feedback. If evidence is needed, how about binding label? https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06#section-11.2 Note it's also reused in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2 Have a nice week-end, Julien On 18/02/2021 16:57, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time. > > I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone > needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably > possible. > > Adrian > > -Original Message- > From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody > Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48 > > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by > defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing > sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field > > 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 15th Feb. > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi Dhruv, I support adoption of this draft. Regards, Samuel From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 12:28 PM To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Hi WG, We *need* to hear from more of you before taking a call on adoption. It is a straightforward "house-keeping" document, but we need to see explicit expressions of support (and comments). We are extending the call till Friday, Feb 19th. Please respond with your support (or not) for this adoption. Regards, Dhruv & Julien On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote: Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field 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 15th Feb. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi, I support this draft. Regards Olivier Le 16/02/2021 à 12:28, Dhruv Dhody a écrit : > Hi WG, > > We *need* to hear from more of you before taking a call on adoption. It is a > straightforward "house-keeping" document, but we need to see explicit > expressions of support (and comments). > > We are extending the call till Friday, Feb 19th. Please respond with your > support (or not) for this adoption. > > Regards, > Dhruv & Julien > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dhruv Dhody <mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote: > > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by > defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing > sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field > > 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 15th Feb. > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce -- Orange logo <http://www.orange.com> Olivier Dugeon Orange Expert, Future Networks Open Source Referent Orange/IMT/OLN/WTC/IEE/iTeQ fixe : +33 2 96 07 28 80 mobile : +33 6 82 90 37 85 olivier.dug...@orange.com <mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com> _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi Adrian, Thank you for your feedback. If evidence is needed, how about binding label? https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06#section-11.2 Note it's also reused in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2 Have a nice week-end, Julien On 18/02/2021 16:57, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time. > > I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone > needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably > possible. > > Adrian > > -Original Message- > From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody > Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48 > > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by > defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing > sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field > > 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 15th Feb. > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > _ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time. I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably possible. Adrian -Original Message- From: Pce On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field 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 15th Feb. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi Aijun, On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:33 PM Aijun Wang wrote: > Hi, Dhruv: > Yes, support its adoption. > I think the extension can give more spaces to describe the future state of > LSP. > One question, is it necessary to be variable length? How to keep align > when the bit position is fixed but the length is variable? > > Not necessary but for what it's worth it has been done in the past, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5088.html#section-4.5 The allocation would start from the most significant bit as bit zero and remain fixed. Thanks! Dhruv > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > On Feb 16, 2021, at 19:29, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > > Hi WG, > > We *need* to hear from more of you before taking a call on adoption. It is > a straightforward "house-keeping" document, but we need to see explicit > expressions of support (and comments). > > We are extending the call till Friday, Feb 19th. Please respond with your > support (or not) for this adoption. > > Regards, > Dhruv & Julien > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > >> Hi WG, >> >> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 >> >> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by >> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing >> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field >> >> 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 15th Feb. >> >> Thanks! >> Dhruv & Julien >> > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi, Dhruv: Yes, support its adoption. I think the extension can give more spaces to describe the future state of LSP. One question, is it necessary to be variable length? How to keep align when the bit position is fixed but the length is variable? Aijun Wang China Telecom > On Feb 16, 2021, at 19:29, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > > Hi WG, > > We *need* to hear from more of you before taking a call on adoption. It is a > straightforward "house-keeping" document, but we need to see explicit > expressions of support (and comments). > > We are extending the call till Friday, Feb 19th. Please respond with your > support (or not) for this adoption. > > Regards, > Dhruv & Julien > >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote: >> Hi WG, >> >> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 >> >> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by >> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing >> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field >> >> 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 15th Feb. >> >> Thanks! >> Dhruv & Julien > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi， I support the adoption of this draft. It solves the problem about the scalability of the flag field and is very useful. Thanks, Yao___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Support. This paper is just at the right time. More and more applications will depend on it in the future. Regards, PSF //[Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 //Dhruv Dhody Mon, 01 February 2021 17:48 UTCShow header //Hi WG, //This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03This //is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by //defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing //sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-fieldShould //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 15th Feb. //Thanks! //Dhruv & Julien___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi WG, We *need* to hear from more of you before taking a call on adoption. It is a straightforward "house-keeping" document, but we need to see explicit expressions of support (and comments). We are extending the call till Friday, Feb 19th. Please respond with your support (or not) for this adoption. Regards, Dhruv & Julien On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by > defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing > sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field > > 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 15th Feb. > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
I support WG adoption by the PCE WG. I agree with Dhruv that maybe we should limit TLV to LSP object only. I don’t mind complexity if their is a significant gain with making it generic. I think we have to weigh the pros and cons. Thanks Gyan On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 3:48 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi, > > While it is an interesting idea to make this generic, I think we should > limit this TLV to be used with the LSP object only to keep this focused and > avoid complexity. > > Regarding sending errors, I don't think we have specified such an error > before for any other TLVs which are specific to an Object. Applying the > robustness principle and ignoring the TLV (if received in other > objects) would make sense IMHO. > > Thanks! > Dhruv (as a WG member) > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:17 PM wrote: > >> >> Hi Cyril, >> >> >> Thanks for your review and comments! It is a good point. >> >> In my opinion, the TLV and the flag could be used in other PCEP Objects. >> >> But if the defination of extended flags are different, then the TLV is >> different. >> >> I think that would be a new TLV, not the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. >> >> What are the thoughts of others? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Quan >> >> >> >> >> >> >Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 >> >> Cyril Margaria Thu, 04 February 2021 10:36 UTCShow >> header >> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/jL4ZD31H1ZUWSvjItgwQItZ2pjw/#> >> >> Support, >> >> I have the following comments: >> - The TLV is, as specified, is not forbidden in other PCEP Objects, >> - It might be only defined as LSP object TLV and error code defined for >> other cases, but it could also be allowed in any object and the extended >> flags defined themselves within the context of an object. >> >> BR >> Cyril >> >> On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 09:14, Dhruv Dhody wrote: >> >> > Hi WG, >> > >> > Greg, Quan, and I discussed this offline and have this proposed text - >> > >> > Note that, PCEP peers MAY encounter different length of the >> > LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. >> > >> >o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV >> > of a length more than it currently supports or understands, >> > it will simply ignore the bits beyond that length. >> > >> >o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of >> > a length less than the one supported by the implementation, >> > it will consider the bits beyond the length to be unset. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > Dhruv (as a WG member) >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:34 AM Greg Mirsky wrote: >> > >> >> Dear All, >> >> I've read the draft and support it being adopted by the PCE WG. The draft >> >> provides an elegant future-proof solution to the real problem. I have one >> >> suggestion for a future revision of this document. You've already >> >> considered backward compatibility between implementations that support the >> >> new TLV and ones that do not. I think we can envision a situation when >> >> implementations with, for example, 32 bit-long LSP Extended Flags field >> >> interwork with implementations that use 64 bit-long field. Such a >> >> situation >> >> might be far away today but it might help developers later. Also, might be >> >> helpful to explicitly note that the value in the Length field equals the >> >> length of the LSP Extended Flags field in octets (some bytes used to be >> >> only seven-bit-long). >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi WG, >> >>> >> >>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. >> >>> >> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03>>> >> >>> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by >> >>> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing >> >>> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. >> >>> >> >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field>>> >> >>> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons >
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi, While it is an interesting idea to make this generic, I think we should limit this TLV to be used with the LSP object only to keep this focused and avoid complexity. Regarding sending errors, I don't think we have specified such an error before for any other TLVs which are specific to an Object. Applying the robustness principle and ignoring the TLV (if received in other objects) would make sense IMHO. Thanks! Dhruv (as a WG member) On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:17 PM wrote: > > Hi Cyril, > > > Thanks for your review and comments! It is a good point. > > In my opinion, the TLV and the flag could be used in other PCEP Objects. > > But if the defination of extended flags are different, then the TLV is > different. > > I think that would be a new TLV, not the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. > > What are the thoughts of others? > > > Thanks, > > Quan > > > > > > >Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > Cyril Margaria Thu, 04 February 2021 10:36 UTCShow > header > <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/jL4ZD31H1ZUWSvjItgwQItZ2pjw/#> > > Support, > > I have the following comments: > - The TLV is, as specified, is not forbidden in other PCEP Objects, > - It might be only defined as LSP object TLV and error code defined for > other cases, but it could also be allowed in any object and the extended > flags defined themselves within the context of an object. > > BR > Cyril > > On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 09:14, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > > Hi WG, > > > > Greg, Quan, and I discussed this offline and have this proposed text - > > > > Note that, PCEP peers MAY encounter different length of the > > LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. > > > >o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV > > of a length more than it currently supports or understands, > > it will simply ignore the bits beyond that length. > > > >o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of > > a length less than the one supported by the implementation, > > it will consider the bits beyond the length to be unset. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Dhruv (as a WG member) > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:34 AM Greg Mirsky wrote: > > > >> Dear All, > >> I've read the draft and support it being adopted by the PCE WG. The draft > >> provides an elegant future-proof solution to the real problem. I have one > >> suggestion for a future revision of this document. You've already > >> considered backward compatibility between implementations that support the > >> new TLV and ones that do not. I think we can envision a situation when > >> implementations with, for example, 32 bit-long LSP Extended Flags field > >> interwork with implementations that use 64 bit-long field. Such a situation > >> might be far away today but it might help developers later. Also, might be > >> helpful to explicitly note that the value in the Length field equals the > >> length of the LSP Extended Flags field in octets (some bytes used to be > >> only seven-bit-long). > >> > >> Regards, > >> Greg > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > >> > >>> Hi WG, > >>> > >>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. > >>> > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03>>> > >>> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by > >>> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing > >>> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. > >>> > >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field>>> > >>> 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 15th Feb. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> Dhruv & Julien > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> Pce mailing list > >>> Pce@ietf.org>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>>> > >> ___ > > Pce mailing list > > Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce> > > > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi Cyril, Thanks for your review and comments! It is a good point. In my opinion, the TLV and the flag could be used in other PCEP Objects. But if the defination of extended flags are different, then the TLV is different. I think that would be a new TLV, not the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. What are the thoughts of others? Thanks, Quan >Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Cyril Margaria Thu, 04 February 2021 10:36 UTCShow header Support, I have the following comments: - The TLV is, as specified, is not forbidden in other PCEP Objects, - It might be only defined as LSP object TLV and error code defined for other cases, but it could also be allowed in any object and the extended flags defined themselves within the context of an object. BR Cyril On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 09:14, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi WG, > > Greg, Quan, and I discussed this offline and have this proposed text - > > Note that, PCEP peers MAY encounter different length of the > LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. > > o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV > of a length more than it currently supports or understands, > it will simply ignore the bits beyond that length. > > o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of > a length less than the one supported by the implementation, > it will consider the bits beyond the length to be unset. > > Thoughts? > > Dhruv (as a WG member) > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:34 AM Greg Mirsky wrote: > >> Dear All, >> I've read the draft and support it being adopted by the PCE WG. The draft >> provides an elegant future-proof solution to the real problem. I have one >> suggestion for a future revision of this document. You've already >> considered backward compatibility between implementations that support the >> new TLV and ones that do not. I think we can envision a situation when >> implementations with, for example, 32 bit-long LSP Extended Flags field >> interwork with implementations that use 64 bit-long field. Such a situation >> might be far away today but it might help developers later. Also, might be >> helpful to explicitly note that the value in the Length field equals the >> length of the LSP Extended Flags field in octets (some bytes used to be >> only seven-bit-long). >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: >> >>> Hi WG, >>> >>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03>>> >>> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by >>> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing >>> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. >>> >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field>>> >>> 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 15th Feb. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Dhruv & Julien >>> >>> ___ >>> Pce mailing list >>> Pce@ietf.org>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>>> >> ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Support, I have the following comments: - The TLV is, as specified, is not forbidden in other PCEP Objects, - It might be only defined as LSP object TLV and error code defined for other cases, but it could also be allowed in any object and the extended flags defined themselves within the context of an object. BR Cyril On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 09:14, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi WG, > > Greg, Quan, and I discussed this offline and have this proposed text - > > Note that, PCEP peers MAY encounter different length of the > LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. > >o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV > of a length more than it currently supports or understands, > it will simply ignore the bits beyond that length. > >o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of > a length less than the one supported by the implementation, > it will consider the bits beyond the length to be unset. > > Thoughts? > > Dhruv (as a WG member) > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:34 AM Greg Mirsky wrote: > >> Dear All, >> I've read the draft and support it being adopted by the PCE WG. The draft >> provides an elegant future-proof solution to the real problem. I have one >> suggestion for a future revision of this document. You've already >> considered backward compatibility between implementations that support the >> new TLV and ones that do not. I think we can envision a situation when >> implementations with, for example, 32 bit-long LSP Extended Flags field >> interwork with implementations that use 64 bit-long field. Such a situation >> might be far away today but it might help developers later. Also, might be >> helpful to explicitly note that the value in the Length field equals the >> length of the LSP Extended Flags field in octets (some bytes used to be >> only seven-bit-long). >> >> Regards, >> Greg >> >> On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: >> >>> Hi WG, >>> >>> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 >>> >>> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by >>> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing >>> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. >>> >>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field >>> >>> 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 15th Feb. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Dhruv & Julien >>> >>> ___ >>> Pce mailing list >>> Pce@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >>> >> ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi WG, Greg, Quan, and I discussed this offline and have this proposed text - Note that, PCEP peers MAY encounter different length of the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of a length more than it currently supports or understands, it will simply ignore the bits beyond that length. o If a PCEP speaker receives the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV of a length less than the one supported by the implementation, it will consider the bits beyond the length to be unset. Thoughts? Dhruv (as a WG member) On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:34 AM Greg Mirsky wrote: > Dear All, > I've read the draft and support it being adopted by the PCE WG. The draft > provides an elegant future-proof solution to the real problem. I have one > suggestion for a future revision of this document. You've already > considered backward compatibility between implementations that support the > new TLV and ones that do not. I think we can envision a situation when > implementations with, for example, 32 bit-long LSP Extended Flags field > interwork with implementations that use 64 bit-long field. Such a situation > might be far away today but it might help developers later. Also, might be > helpful to explicitly note that the value in the Length field equals the > length of the LSP Extended Flags field in octets (some bytes used to be > only seven-bit-long). > > Regards, > Greg > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > >> Hi WG, >> >> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 >> >> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by >> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing >> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field >> >> 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 15th Feb. >> >> Thanks! >> Dhruv & Julien >> >> ___ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Dear All, I've read the draft and support it being adopted by the PCE WG. The draft provides an elegant future-proof solution to the real problem. I have one suggestion for a future revision of this document. You've already considered backward compatibility between implementations that support the new TLV and ones that do not. I think we can envision a situation when implementations with, for example, 32 bit-long LSP Extended Flags field interwork with implementations that use 64 bit-long field. Such a situation might be far away today but it might help developers later. Also, might be helpful to explicitly note that the value in the Length field equals the length of the LSP Extended Flags field in octets (some bytes used to be only seven-bit-long). Regards, Greg On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote: > Hi WG, > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 > > This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by > defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing > sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field > > 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 15th Feb. > > Thanks! > Dhruv & Julien > > ___ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Support the adoption of this draft. It provides a way to define the new extensions. Thanks, Sandy --原始邮件-- <<[Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Dhruv Dhody Mon, 01 February 2021 17:48 UTCShow header Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-fieldShould 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 15th Feb. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi WG, I think this draft is very useful and support the adoption for it. Best Regards, Ran 原始邮件 发件人：DhruvDhody 收件人：pce@ietf.org; 日 期 ：2021年02月02日 01:56 主 题 ：[Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field 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 15th Feb. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Yes/support as co-author. It is an important work and the extension is useful for other drafts. Thanks, Quan <<[Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 Dhruv Dhody Mon, 01 February 2021 17:48 UTCShow header Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03.https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-fieldShould 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 15th Feb. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03 This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned. https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field 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 15th Feb. Thanks! Dhruv & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
