Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
Jon, thanks. I scanned your mail and it all looks good. Will try to have a read of the draft as well, but time is a bit full at the moment. A > -Original Message- > From: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com] > Sent: 29 June 2018 18:24 > To: adr...@olddog.co.uk > Cc: 'Julien Meuric'; pce@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 > > Hi Adrian > > Sorry for the delay. Thanks again for the carefully considered feedback. I've > trimmed out points below where I agreed and no comment was necessary. > Please find answers and clarifications below. > > --- > > Section 3 > >o An ordered set of IP address(es) representing network nodes/links: > In this case, the PCC needs to convert the IP address(es) into the > corresponding MPLS labels by consulting its Traffic Engineering > Database (TED). > > But I am surprised that this work is offloaded to the PCC since the PCE has all the > information to do this task. Why did the WG want to add this option? > > And then... > >o An ordered set of SID(s) > > s/SID(s)/SIDs/ > > This list of SIDs would need to be converted to labels by the PCC by applying the > SRGB offsets. Again, why make the PCC do this? > > And finally... > >o An ordered set of both MPLS label(s) and IP address(es): In this > case, the PCC needs to convert the IP address(es) into the > corresponding SID(s) by consulting its TED. > > This mixture of the previous two cases seems to compound the level of > complexity. Can't the PCE just know it is making an SR path and supply a list of > MPLS labels corresponding to the SIDs? > > [Jon] Having consulted the authors, the reason is that different PCE > implementations have different approaches, which can all be accommodated > fairly straightforwardly in the draft's format. Having said that, it seems harsh to > force the PCC into having to provide an NAI-resolution service for the PCE. > Therefore, I have added a capability flag so that the PCC can indicate that it > cannot / will not do NAI resolution. [/Jon] > > --- > > 5.1.2 > 6 > >If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with a >PST list containing PST=1, but the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is >absent, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error- >Type 10 (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value TBD1 (to be >assigned by IANA) (Missing PCE-SR-CAPABILITY sub-TLV) and MUST then >close the PCEP session. > > Suppose an implementation receives an Open with PST=1 but doesn't > understand (or doesn't support) that value. Is it still required to perform this > check? Hopefully not. > > [Jon] Nope. Have changed to > >If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with a >PST list containing PST=1, and supports that path setup type, then it >checks for the presence of the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV. If that sub-TLV is >absent, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error- >Type 10 (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value TBD1 (to be >assigned by IANA) (Missing PCE-SR-CAPABILITY sub-TLV) and MUST then >close the PCEP session. > [/Jon] > > --- > > 5.3.1 (under Length) has > > As mentioned earlier, an SR-ERO > subobject MUST have at least SID or NAI. > > This is good and does tie in with what is written in earlier sections. > > However, 5.3.1 starts with > >An SR-ERO subobject consists of a 32-bit header followed by the SID >and the NAI associated with the SID. The SID is a 32-bit number. >The size of the NAI depends on its respective type, as described in >the following sections. > > That makes it sound like they are both mandatory, and the figure doesn't help. > > A little rewording would go a long way, and you could add "(optional)" > to the figure. > > [Jon] I have modified the preamble to the following, and have added the word > "optional" to the diagram. > >An SR-ERO subobject consists of a 32-bit header followed by the SID >and/or the NAI associated with the SID. The SID is a 32-bit number. >The size of the NAI depends on its respective type, as described in >the following sections. At least one of the SID and the NAI MUST be >included in the SR-ERO subobject, and both MAY be included. > [/Jon] > > --- > > 5.3.1 > >SID Type (ST) indicates the type of information associated with the > SID contained in the object body. When ST value is 0, SID MUST > NOT be null and NAI MUST be null. > > Does "n
Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
Hi Cyril Many apologies for the delay – please see below. Cheers Jon From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cyril Margaria Sent: 30 January 2018 16:49 To: Dhruv Dhody Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 Hi, I have the following (hopefully not too late) comments/questions: Section 5.3 ERO Object S: When this bit is set, the SID value in the subobject body is null. In this case, the PCC is responsible for choosing the SID value, e.g., by looking up its TED using the NAI which, in this case, MUST be present in the subobject. - What is the associated procedure if the PCC cannot resolve the NAI to a SID? Should there be associated error codes. For instance the PCC may not be able to resolve the NAI at all or the resolution may fail. In case the PCC does not support the NAI resolution, having this capability part of the capability exchange would improve interop, as the PCE can be capable to provide the SID. [Jon] I agree that a capability would be good. Yes, if the NAI cannot be resolved, it should be rejected. I have added both of these to the latest draft. [/Jon] - If Both S and F are cleared, should the PCC do the NAI resolution and verify that the SID match? Would error codes be needed) [Jon] If the SID is a bare label then the NAI may be given to help identify the next hop. If the SID is an index and NAI is given as well, then the PCC SHOULD use the SID, because it is a more explicit instruction. The PCE MAY give both SID and NAI for diagnostic / logging purposes. I don’t think we should require the PCC to validate SID==NAI in that case; it should just use the SID as given. I will clarify in the draft. [/Jon] Thanks, Cyril On 30 January 2018 at 01:19, Dhruv Dhody mailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi, I had reviewed and given comments on the I-D in the past, which the authors had addressed. I found these additional nits/suggestions. Apologies for being late by a day. Suggestions --- Section 1 (1) Though it is true that a child PCE act as a PCC towards the parent PCE, I feel it is not wise to say the opposite, that is a PCC is acting as a PCE in this context. I see no advantage to bring up the H-PCE in this context. I suggest we remove it. A PCE, or a PCC operating as a PCE (in hierarchical PCE environment), computes paths for MPLS Traffic Engineering LSPs (MPLS-TE LSPs) based on various constraints and optimization criteria. (2) Since this document is related to MPLS data plane only, it would be nice to include a pointer to the SRv6 work in PCEP for the benefit of the readers. (3) Regarding first mention of PST OLD: This specification relies on the procedures specified in [I- D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type]. NEW: This specification relies on the procedures specified in [I- D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type] for the path setup type for SR. Section 3 (4) Regarding this text - SR-TE LSPs computed by a PCE can be represented in one of the following forms: o An ordered set of IP address(es) representing network nodes/links: In this case, the PCC needs to convert the IP address(es) into the corresponding MPLS labels by consulting its Traffic Engineering Database (TED). o An ordered set of SID(s). o An ordered set of both MPLS label(s) and IP address(es): In this case, the PCC needs to convert the IP address(es) into the corresponding SID(s) by consulting its TED. Each SR-ERO object can include both SID and NAI (IP address); this case is different from the case 3 above, I suggest if some text can be added to make things clearer. Section 5.1.1 (5) Why SHOULD in this text? A PCEP speaker SHOULD indicate its support of the function described in this document by sending a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object with this new PST included in the PST list. Section 6 (6) Regarding, A PCEP speaker that does not support the SR PCEP capability cannot recognize the SR-ERO or SR-RRO subobjects. As such, it MUST send a PCEP error with Error-Type = 4 (Not supported object) and Error-Value = 2 (Not supported object Type) as per [RFC5440]. RFC 5440 did not state the behavior for unknown sub-object. My suggestion would be - A PCEP speaker that does not support the SR PCEP capability and thus cannot recognize the SR-ERO or SR-RRO subobjects, it will respond according to the rules for a malformed object as per [RFC5440]. Section 7 (7) Suggest to make Manageability Consideration section as per RFC 6123 (8) PCEP-Yang should be mentioned in section 7.2 Section 8 (9) Suggest we expand the security consideration section a bit based on recent DISCUSSes.
Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
Hi Dhruv
My apologies for the delay. Please find my replies and comments below.
Cheers
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 30 January 2018 09:20
To: Julien Meuric ; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
Hi,
I had reviewed and given comments on the I-D in the past, which the
authors had addressed. I found these additional nits/suggestions.
Apologies for being late by a day.
Suggestions
---
Section 1
(1) Though it is true that a child PCE act as a PCC towards the
parent PCE, I feel it is not wise to say the opposite, that is a PCC
is acting as a PCE in this context. I see no advantage to bring up the
H-PCE in this context. I suggest we remove it.
A PCE, or a PCC operating as a PCE (in hierarchical PCE
environment), computes paths for MPLS Traffic Engineering LSPs
(MPLS-TE LSPs) based on various constraints and optimization
criteria.
[Jon] OK with me - I'll trim it. [/Jon]
(2) Since this document is related to MPLS data plane only, it would
be nice to include a pointer to the SRv6 work in PCEP for the benefit
of the readers.
[Jon] Changed introduction text as follows and added normative references.
The SR architecture can be implemented using either an MPLS forwarding plane
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] or an IPv6 forwarding plane
[I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]. The MPLS forwarding plane can be
applied to SR without any change, in which case an SR path corresponds to an
MPLS Label Switching Path (LSP). This document is relevant to the MPLS
forwarding plane only.
[/Jon]
(3) Regarding first mention of PST
OLD:
This specification relies on the procedures specified in [I-
D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type].
NEW:
This specification relies on the procedures specified in [I-
D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type] for the path setup type for SR.
[Jon] I changed it to:
This specification relies on the procedures specified in [I-
D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type] to exchange the segment routing
capability and to specify that the path setup type of an LSP
is segment routing..
[/Jon]
Section 3
(4) Regarding this text -
SR-TE LSPs
computed by a PCE can be represented in one of the following forms:
o An ordered set of IP address(es) representing network nodes/links:
In this case, the PCC needs to convert the IP address(es) into the
corresponding MPLS labels by consulting its Traffic Engineering
Database (TED).
o An ordered set of SID(s).
o An ordered set of both MPLS label(s) and IP address(es): In this
case, the PCC needs to convert the IP address(es) into the
corresponding SID(s) by consulting its TED.
Each SR-ERO object can include both SID and NAI (IP address); this
case is different from the case 3 above, I suggest if some text can
be added to make things clearer.
[Jon] Changed bullet 2 to:
An ordered set of SIDs, with or without the corresponding IP addresses.
[/Jon]
Section 5.1.1
(5) Why SHOULD in this text?
A PCEP speaker SHOULD indicate its support of the function described
in this document by sending a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the
OPEN object with this new PST included in the PST list.
[Jon] For backwards compatibility with shipping implementations that omit it.
[/Jon]
Section 6
(6) Regarding,
A PCEP speaker that does not support the SR PCEP capability cannot
recognize the SR-ERO or SR-RRO subobjects. As such, it MUST send a
PCEP error with Error-Type = 4 (Not supported object) and Error-Value
= 2 (Not supported object Type) as per [RFC5440].
RFC 5440 did not state the behavior for unknown sub-object. My
suggestion would be -
A PCEP speaker that does not support the SR PCEP capability and
thus cannot recognize the SR-ERO or SR-RRO subobjects, it will
respond according to the rules for a malformed object as per
[RFC5440].
[Jon] OK [/Jon]
Section 7
(7) Suggest to make Manageability Consideration section as per RFC
6123
[Jon] Done [/Jon]
(8) PCEP-Yang should be mentioned in section 7.2
[Jon] Done [/Jon]
Section 8
(9) Suggest we expand the security consideration section a bit based
on recent DISCUSSes.
[Jon] Have tweaked it a bit but I think (nay, hope) what we have is OK as it
passed for the LSP setup type draft. [/Jon]
Nits
Section 5.3.3
(2)
OLD:
A PCEP speaker that does not recognize the SR-ERO subobject in PCRep,
PCInitiate, PCUpd or PCRpt messages MUST reject the entire PCEP
message and MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=3 ("Unknown
Object") and Error-Value=2 ("Unrecognized object Type") or Error-
Type=4 ("Not supported object") and
Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
ot;) or Error-
> Type=4 ("Not supported object") and Error-Value=2 ("Not supported
> object Type"), defined in [RFC5440].
>NEW:
> A PCEP speaker that does not recognize or support the SR-ERO
> subobject in PCRep, PCInitiate, PCUpd or PCRpt messages MUST
> reject the entire PCEP message and MUST send a PCErr message with
> Error-Type=3 ("Unknown Object") and Error-Value=2 ("Unrecognized
> object Type") or Error- Type=4 ("Not supported object") and Error-
> Value=2 ("Not supported object Type"), defined in [RFC5440].
>
> (3) I agree with Adrian that the ".. not identical" needs to change.
>Since you mean all subobject in ERO must be of SR-ERO type, we should
>just call it that! (also applicable for SR-RRO).
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
> > Sent: 15 January 2018 15:08
> > To: pce@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
> >
> > Dear PCE WG,
> >
> > Best wishes for this new year, full of interoperable specifications. Let
> > us begin by resuming our work in progress.
> >
> > This message starts a 2-week WG last call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-
> > routing-11. Please send your feedback on the I-D to the PCE mailing list
> > by Monday January 29.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jon & 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] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
Hi all, This LC has ended. Adrian, Dhruv (on HAST time), thanks a lot for your valuable reviews. Authors, please address identified issues and update the I-D. Cheers, Julien Jan. 15, 2018 - Julien Meuric: > Dear PCE WG, > > Best wishes for this new year, full of interoperable specifications. Let > us begin by resuming our work in progress. > > This message starts a 2-week WG last call for > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11. Please send your feedback on the I-D > to the PCE mailing list by Monday January 29. > > Regards, > > Jon & 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] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
Hi,
I had reviewed and given comments on the I-D in the past, which the
authors had addressed. I found these additional nits/suggestions.
Apologies for being late by a day.
Suggestions
---
Section 1
(1) Though it is true that a child PCE act as a PCC towards the
parent PCE, I feel it is not wise to say the opposite, that is a PCC
is acting as a PCE in this context. I see no advantage to bring up the
H-PCE in this context. I suggest we remove it.
A PCE, or a PCC operating as a PCE (in hierarchical PCE
environment), computes paths for MPLS Traffic Engineering LSPs
(MPLS-TE LSPs) based on various constraints and optimization
criteria.
(2) Since this document is related to MPLS data plane only, it would
be nice to include a pointer to the SRv6 work in PCEP for the benefit
of the readers.
(3) Regarding first mention of PST
OLD:
This specification relies on the procedures specified in [I-
D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type].
NEW:
This specification relies on the procedures specified in [I-
D.ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type] for the path setup type for SR.
Section 3
(4) Regarding this text -
SR-TE LSPs
computed by a PCE can be represented in one of the following forms:
o An ordered set of IP address(es) representing network nodes/links:
In this case, the PCC needs to convert the IP address(es) into the
corresponding MPLS labels by consulting its Traffic Engineering
Database (TED).
o An ordered set of SID(s).
o An ordered set of both MPLS label(s) and IP address(es): In this
case, the PCC needs to convert the IP address(es) into the
corresponding SID(s) by consulting its TED.
Each SR-ERO object can include both SID and NAI (IP address); this
case is different from the case 3 above, I suggest if some text can
be added to make things clearer.
Section 5.1.1
(5) Why SHOULD in this text?
A PCEP speaker SHOULD indicate its support of the function described
in this document by sending a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV in the
OPEN object with this new PST included in the PST list.
Section 6
(6) Regarding,
A PCEP speaker that does not support the SR PCEP capability cannot
recognize the SR-ERO or SR-RRO subobjects. As such, it MUST send a
PCEP error with Error-Type = 4 (Not supported object) and Error-Value
= 2 (Not supported object Type) as per [RFC5440].
RFC 5440 did not state the behavior for unknown sub-object. My
suggestion would be -
A PCEP speaker that does not support the SR PCEP capability and
thus cannot recognize the SR-ERO or SR-RRO subobjects, it will
respond according to the rules for a malformed object as per
[RFC5440].
Section 7
(7) Suggest to make Manageability Consideration section as per RFC
6123
(8) PCEP-Yang should be mentioned in section 7.2
Section 8
(9) Suggest we expand the security consideration section a bit based
on recent DISCUSSes.
Nits
Section 5.3.1
s/MUST not/MUST NOT/
Section 5.3.3
(2)
OLD:
A PCEP speaker that does not recognize the SR-ERO subobject in PCRep,
PCInitiate, PCUpd or PCRpt messages MUST reject the entire PCEP
message and MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type=3 ("Unknown
Object") and Error-Value=2 ("Unrecognized object Type") or Error-
Type=4 ("Not supported object") and Error-Value=2 ("Not supported
object Type"), defined in [RFC5440].
NEW:
A PCEP speaker that does not recognize or support the SR-ERO
subobject in PCRep, PCInitiate, PCUpd or PCRpt messages MUST
reject the entire PCEP message and MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-Type=3 ("Unknown Object") and Error-Value=2 ("Unrecognized
object Type") or Error- Type=4 ("Not supported object") and Error-
Value=2 ("Not supported object Type"), defined in [RFC5440].
(3) I agree with Adrian that the ".. not identical" needs to change.
Since you mean all subobject in ERO must be of SR-ERO type, we should
just call it that! (also applicable for SR-RRO).
Thanks!
Dhruv
> -Original Message-
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
> Sent: 15 January 2018 15:08
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
>
> Dear PCE WG,
>
> Best wishes for this new year, full of interoperable specifications. Let
> us begin by resuming our work in progress.
>
> This message starts a 2-week WG last call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-
> routing-11. Please send your feedback on the I-D to the PCE mailing list
> by Monday January 29.
>
> Regards,
>
>
Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
Adrian Many thanks for your review. The authors will need to discuss your comments, and then we'll get back to you. Best regards Jon -Original Message- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 18 January 2018 22:55 To: 'Julien Meuric' <julien.meu...@orange.com>; pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 Hi, I reviewed this draft as part of the WG last call. It is important work and needs to be published as an RFC. However, there are some places where the clarity could be improved and so increase the chances of interoperable implementations. I have clustered the nits at the end of this email. Thanks, Adrian = Section 3 In SR networks, an ingress node of an SR path appends all outgoing packets with an SR header consisting of a list of SIDs (or MPLS labels in the context of this document). Conventionally, "append" means to add to the end (although it can mean to arbitrarily add). I think you want "prepend" although the sentence is still clumsy and might be better as... In an SR network, the ingress node of an SR path prepends an SR header to all outgoing packets. The SR header consists of a list of SIDs (or MPLS labels in the context of this document). --- Section 3 (same paragraph) I think this is not quite true. Well, it is true that signaling is not needed, but not true that the header has all the necessary information in all cases - the IGP may need to resolve a path to a Node SID. Perhaps... The header has all necessary information so that in combination with the information distributed by the IGP, the packets can be guided from the ingress node to the egress node of the path, and hence there is no need for any signaling protocol. --- Section 3 para 2 has the same "append" problem, and also overstates what is carried in the ERO. Suggest... OLD In a PCEP session, LSP information is carried in the Explicit Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects. Various types of ERO subobjects have been specified in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], and [RFC3477]. In SR networks, an ingress node of an SR path appends all outgoing packets with an SR header consisting of a list of SIDs (or MPLS labels in the context of this document). SR-TE LSPs computed by a PCE can be represented in one of the following forms: NEW In PCEP messages, LSP route information is carried in the Explicit Route Object (ERO), which consists of a sequence of subobjects. Various ERO subobjects have been specified in [RFC3209], [RFC3473], and [RFC3477]. In SR networks, an ingress node of an SR path prepends an SR header to all outgoing packets. The SR header consists of a list of SIDs (or MPLS labels in the context of this document). SR-TE paths computed by a PCE can be represented in one of the following forms: END However, I wonder why you have picked just those three RFCs to reference. Many other RFCs also define ERO subobjects. The full list is RFC3209 RFC3473 RFC3477 RFC4874 RFC5520 RFC5553 RFC7570 RFC7898 RFC7897 ...but listing them all would be odd. --- Section 3 o An ordered set of IP address(es) representing network nodes/links: In this case, the PCC needs to convert the IP address(es) into the corresponding MPLS labels by consulting its Traffic Engineering Database (TED). The PCC does not have a TED. It does have an LSDB as distributed by the IGP and this will contain the SRGBs and SIDs that allow labels to be computed. But I am surprised that this work is offloaded to the PCC since the PCE has all the information to do this task. Why did the WG want to add this option? And then... o An ordered set of SID(s) s/SID(s)/SIDs/ This list of SIDs would need to be converted to labels by the PCC by applying the SRGB offsets. Again, why make the PCC do this? And finally... o An ordered set of both MPLS label(s) and IP address(es): In this case, the PCC needs to convert the IP address(es) into the corresponding SID(s) by consulting its TED. This mixture of the previous two cases seems to compound the level of complexity. Can't the PCE just know it is making an SR path and supply a list of MPLS labels corresponding to the SIDs? --- 5.1.1 ---> 9 You should probably set up a registry for other SR PCE Capability sub- TLV flags. --- 5.1.2 > 6 If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with a PST list containing PST=1, but the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV is absent, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error- Type 10 (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-Value TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA) (Missing PCE-SR-CAPABILITY sub-TLV) and MUST then close the PCEP session. Suppose an implementation receives an Open with PST=1 b
Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
ra 1 has two cases where "SR architecture" should be "the SR architecture". --- S1P1 OLD and is always global within SR/IGP domain NEW and is always identified uniquely within the SR/IGP domain END --- S1P1 s/e.g./e.g.,/ --- S1P1 OLD within SR/IGP domain NEW an within SR/IGP domain END -- draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp is now RFC8281 --- 5.2 Took some time to parse... OLD In order to setup an SR-TE LSP using SR, RP or SRP object MUST include PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV NEW In order to setup an SR-TE LSP using SR, the RP or SRP object MUST include PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV END --- 5.3 and 5.4 Please avoid saying "ERO Object" and "RRO Object" --- Throughout the document, please don't do the optional plural thing. E.g., "may contain one or more TLV(s)" English likes you to use the plural even when the singular is possible. E.g., "may contain one or more TLVs" > -Original Message- > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric > Sent: 15 January 2018 09:38 > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11 > > Dear PCE WG, > > Best wishes for this new year, full of interoperable specifications. Let > us begin by resuming our work in progress. > > This message starts a 2-week WG last call for > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11. Please send your feedback on the I-D > to the PCE mailing list by Monday January 29. ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11
Dear PCE WG, Best wishes for this new year, full of interoperable specifications. Let us begin by resuming our work in progress. This message starts a 2-week WG last call for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-11. Please send your feedback on the I-D to the PCE mailing list by Monday January 29. Regards, Jon & Julien ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
