IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Thu, 20 October 2022 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
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 1D989C1522A3; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eggert.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KLX24cA_n-iF; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:34:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.eggert.org (mail.eggert.org [91.190.195.94]) (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 079A6C1522A0; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 08:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:f1db:6c8d:4bb0:23a7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BB16A1DBE64; Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:34:05 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=eggert.org; s=dkim; t=1666280045; bh=KOnB8MB4gzWHsWzPVpHo4t4KTcGA8PZVdpTp9bsK1Bk=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Vj6/FASpRRQijAyErxBRV09QwwYYQpzcPnbi1LHCyUdNrQymIoY4/kznDy8g/P4Uz L71XUONT5fZkGA1gOq2eP07mqkYYwIl+yrFUHRKsDKKlhwhmRXgws1M7j4swm6CRuW Lhy0NGwV4lbHWgjD8udNQN8WptmArvrVWM/ZB67I=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CED3CD2E-B028-49F3-8414-606CD10D2E6F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <7E2464EF-6C41-4A30-B505-1B0C44145755@juniper.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 18:34:05 +0300
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@ietf.org" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <E86CF785-1B6A-4FFD-9CF6-0E41B7F95AF5@eggert.org>
References: <166626472846.40913.3354646287365019971@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAP7zK5bjFjYazprv+b6fivCed6VHvohuz7nAp9+eq9i8zwQeAQ@mail.gmail.com> <7E2464EF-6C41-4A30-B505-1B0C44145755@juniper.net>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
X-MailScanner-ID: BB16A1DBE64.A3C80
X-MailScanner: Not scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail Service Provider for details
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/OreaVkhTkh7ikFimcgq9XQ18YqA>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-extended-flags-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 20 Oct 2022 15:34:23 -0000

On 2022-10-20, at 16:51, John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> I read this comment differently. Here’s what I took it to mean. In the clause "Unassigned flags MUST be set to zero on transmission”, if you read that in the narrowest possible way, it might require an implementation to know what flags are unassigned, so that it can set them to zero on transmission. If the clause were changed to “Flags unsupported by the implementation MUST be set to zero on transmission” I think that would be responsive to (how I read) the comment. The same point would apply to Section 3.1.
> 
> That’s just my reading of course and Lars should clarify as needed.

This is exactly what I was trying to express, thanks.

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email