Re: [Idr] Mail regarding draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy

Hi Shunwan,

I missed this email during my holidays. Apologies for the delay in
responding.

You are correct on the handling part and multiple instances of the TLV
should not be considered to be malformed by BGP (they are handled by SRPM).
We can clarify this in the text as part of an update that will be posted
shortly.

Thanks for catching this.

Ketan

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 5:48 PM Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan=
40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Dear Co-Authors,
>
>
>
> Thank you for writing a very useful document! I have a question that need
> your help.
>
>
>
> Multiple Sub-TLVs, such as the Policy Candidate Path Name Sub-TLV, are
> defined as follows:
>
> “
>
> The Policy Candidate Path Name sub-TLV is optional and it MUST NOT appear
> more than once in the SR Policy encoding.
>
> ”
>
>
>
> What should we do if a Sub-TLV presents more than once?
>
>
>
> Per section 5. Error Handling and Fault Management, should the
> "treat-as-withdraw" strategy be applied?
>
>
>
>
>
> When we refer to the PCEP SR Policy draft (draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-12
> - PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/>),
> it is described in section 4.2 as follows:
>
> “
>
> Unless specifically stated otherwise, the TLVs listed in the following
> sub-sections are assumed to be single instance. Meaning, one instance of
> the TLV SHOULD be present in the object and only the first instance of the
> TLV SHOULD be interpreted and subsequent instances SHOULD be ignored.
>
> ”
>
>
>
> Could BGP SR Policy applies the same strategy as PCEP SR Policy?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shunwan
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>