IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Wed, 03 February 2021 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
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 9F97B3A11B2 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 13:04:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 eoU3e8eN8gTQ for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 13:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EE363A11BE for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 13:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id s18so722562ljg.7 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 13:04:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5kSx1jnSXeoUPOTXaksjc+GxhNgdTAyitfam5IpImCo=; b=p1rH1lhWsNdmsa+z7wiEq84WIS12X2ixVvZ1eA5R6K7Gw0zVl1Vg1NwFmBhWcqPENU hAV52jh3Po46amktHYlJEBJ7D15i4x3i/BvH8sfsxqx49rzQ8e5NSYsaVcpseYCvIBey 5ytR2bPIKUv9WT/BtVPYwdRLV5AIO/6CBh3LTvZxzbJdDs5yWwqhTCPTAZT80Vqb9aNb e+RyWYovw1YGeqEynzq98sABTXBOZCgSw200vPagAow9yzAPs4eC5/A2JUCadT37/OMU XMQfjeagPyAyNXxXzsYQLbKvd/l1ovHZYzqFklVt7QXIlw9pD4rGR1fNvA39F/TX0Vfm PvEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5kSx1jnSXeoUPOTXaksjc+GxhNgdTAyitfam5IpImCo=; b=V4MpYLFJjcdH57F78YOp1HLx+/j5p3n2UPMnk25l1JTgybI3ci20kKjW31q61Bs72M 3GvOdyjMg0d6oSdOfcXRFJMg3vd9GnhSUhWOhgaYpI5wz+EjSK+MZnjK8fkXeIA2E/9f kThJZks5I1yxM3XwNdAJTkd4klbyLwUOa0X7SOneFnK4xxlAsqdHMHS83+9B5PQVlfLl y8I36roVI0Y1vNvHrqAT4Chkj7E6LrpOBn0yzHh1lzZ76/TDY7o42MRQwclrLcGMkjwe Ch+HzrOyObpgY9Tt5udSyBOfANv9F3eMuXuP6ODRIGmKPnUYgSxSZ5AY2GUZxpE/EX1m U5eg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530bq7kb59P4lOn9u1xj7RZosj6YgKACSungHwswy6Qpfunvu4fM L6iYY4CtTua/pv53CZFyz7gNICK9MWrW8kesytk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhd2P8LcTlJh5JwsNzli8xEtMQr+CnACsYFkglBpMCIPDxwQGmqG83qcYQTcRXyRdjHDsV2RDJn1fLDU+9XwU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3309:: with SMTP id d9mr2906774ljc.245.1612386248992; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 13:04:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP7zK5YxLUw_TvG-EBQXSfMcYUaeck+FZ=8o9+fbxJW=v59teA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP7zK5YxLUw_TvG-EBQXSfMcYUaeck+FZ=8o9+fbxJW=v59teA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 13:03:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmVudff2fy5KbJ6m2GALxQ9hYga9e99Q2dP0hefY19LdiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009ca95c05ba74ed52"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/KmvQ3swJr9F6BDgVL3DFXn7f_cw>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
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: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 21:04:15 -0000

Dear All,
I've read the draft and support it being adopted by the PCE WG. The draft
provides an elegant future-proof solution to the real problem. I have one
suggestion for a future revision of this document. You've already
considered backward compatibility between implementations that support the
new TLV and ones that do not. I think we can envision a situation when
implementations with, for example, 32 bit-long LSP Extended Flags field
interwork with implementations that use 64 bit-long field. Such a situation
might be far away today but it might help developers later. Also, might be
helpful to explicitly note that the value in the Length field equals the
length of the LSP Extended Flags field in octets (some bytes used to be
only seven-bit-long).

Regards,
Greg

On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 9:48 AM Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
>
> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by
> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing
> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
> - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are
> you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to
> the list.
>
> Please respond by Monday 15th Feb.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email