Re: [Isis-wg] Re: [Pce] Please comment on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-isis-07.txt

[Hannes Gredler <[e-mail]>]

hi jp,

agreed as far as pce is concerned,
one comment on the *If* section -

i do not think that replacing a bloated TLV with another
bloated TLV [genapp] will buy us anything. i.e. the
size is not getting smaller ;-)

[genapp] is primarily a vehicle for not running out of
TLV codepoints for 'per-application' use.

Given that the pced TLV is well structured and has a
proper support for TLV nesting there is no need to use
[genapp].

so at best a "may" is appropriate, certainly no "should".

/hannes




JP Vasseur wrote:
>    Hi,
> 
> Some concerns were expressed by several individuals,
> and OSPF WG chairs about the potential size of the PCED and more
> recently issues were raised during IESG review because of the dynamic
> nature of the CONGESTION TLV carried within the PCED TLV.
> 
> So the agreement we had was to:
> 1) Indicate in the document that no further sub-TLV will be added in the 
> future. Should there be a need to advertise more PCE capability, this can
> still be part of the PCEP session establishment phase. *If* at some point,
> there is a need to use the IGP to advertise more data, then this should be
> done using the GENINFO TLV defined draft-ginsberg-isis-genapp 
> potentially using a different Is-IS instance and by using a new
> Opaque LSA.
> 2) Remove the CONGESTION TLV from both documents. 
> 
> The updated documents (rev 08) have just been posted and account for 
> these changes along with other comments that we received.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
> 
> On Sep 14, 2007, at 5:36 PM, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
> 
>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
>>
>>> 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
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg