[Pce] [pce] :New Version Notification for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt

<xiong.quan@zte.com.cn> Thu, 28 November 2019 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB82120B38 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 19:45:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sWO3CoTTMZIJ for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 19:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A44C8120B34 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 19:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 9EA6C72B5030245CA5BD; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:45:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id xAS3hrqG005410; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:43:53 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:43:52 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:43:52 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc5ddf4278a5367b45
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201911281143527963033@zte.com.cn>
References: 157484126744.13739.10794780522205896293.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
To: andrew.stone@nokia.com, dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, loa@pi.nu
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn xAS3hrqG005410
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/GSqMqlNzq3pFLbQJlvhQ9KXDers>
Subject: [Pce] [pce] :New Version Notification for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 03:45:21 -0000

Hi all,







I  have summitted the draft which proposes a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for LSP object to extend the length of the flag field.


Could you please give me some suggestions about the format?






Thanks,


Quan











原始邮件



发件人:internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
收件人:熊泉00091065;
日 期 :2019年11月27日 15:54
主 题 :New Version Notification for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt



A new version of I-D, draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Quan Xiong and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:        draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag
Revision:    00
Title:        LSP Object Flag field of Stateful PCE
Document date:    2019-11-26
Group:        Individual Submission
Pages:        6
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag


Abstract:
   RFC8231 describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
   control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths(LSPs) via PCEP.
   One of the extensions is the LSP object which includes a Flag field
   and the length is 12 bits.  However, 11 bits of the Flag field has
   been assigned in RFC8231, RFC8281 and RFC8623 respectively.

   This document updates RFC8231 by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV
   for LSP object to extend the length of the flag.

                                                                                  


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat