A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 9358
Title: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extensions for Establishing Relationships
between Sets of Label Switched Paths and
(just small update – dropped some copy pasted statements from my response as I
finally responded with inline comments)
Regards,
Samuel
From: Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:27 PM
To: Dhruv Dhody
Cc: pce-chairs ; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ;
pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: LSP id
Hi Dhruv,
Thanks a lot, for your comments. Please see inline .
Regards,
Samuel
“allow SR paths to be set up with minimal information needed” ->
“Specifically about endpoints, for PCC configured SR path you have it via local
configuration and for the PCE-initiated, END-POINTS object could also
Hi Samuel,
The feeling at the time was to get away from the RSVP-TE-thinking for SR
(and allow SR paths to be set up with minimal information needed). If I
recall correctly, the "MAY" was the "compromise" struck at the time to
allow SR paths to be set up without it but when use cases require these
Hi PCE-chairs,
Since there is no reasonable explanation provided in the mailing list - does
that mean that RFC is "broken" and we need Errata to fix it? E.g. by making LSP
identifiers TLV mandatory?
Thanks,
Samuel
From: Pce On Behalf Of Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2023 1
