Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)

"Chengli (Cheng Li)" <> Fri, 26 March 2021 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969CF3A08B0; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.498
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_COMMENT_SAVED_URL=1.391, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2zjEnig-P6dW; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F23543A08A7; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4F66Nh4zP5z682Bg; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 11:08:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 04:12:51 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 11:12:49 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.013; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 11:12:49 +0800
From: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <>
To: tom petch <>, "" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
Thread-Index: AQHXG+caJnUYRqZeiUCqBl16P0lEgaqPa+IAgAY3hzA=
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 03:12:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_7b250172606b41a69edbf8a1d0395ebehuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 03:12:59 -0000

Hi Tom,

Many thanks for your comments. Please see my reply inline.


-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [] On Behalf Of tom petch
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)

Separate to my other comments
From: Pce <> on behalf of <>
Sent: 18 March 2021 11:08

Hi all,

This message initiates a 2-week PCE WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07. Please review and share your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This WGLC will end on Thursday April 1st (no kidding).

Moreover, we have received a request from the authors for a code point allocation to support interoperability testing.

RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:

b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to handling the protocol entities defined by the code points (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described in an Internet-Draft.
c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.

If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria, or believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other reason, please send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining why. If the chairs hear no objections by Thursday, March 25th, we will kick off the "early" allocation request.

I am unclear how much is being requested of IANA here but ..

s.11.1.1 starts the registry at zero which is consistent with the rest of the I-D.  Is there any need to reserve the value of zero as something special?  Probably not but something to consider

[Cheng] WG/existing implemntations are happy with 0; I dont see a strong reason to change that.

TBD4 and TBD5 have almost identical Error-value which I think unhelpful.  The wording should be more distinctive IMHO.  If this is part of the Early Allocation request, then it is better to fix it now rather than getting into IANA in this form. Perhaps 'Unable to amend the..
'Unable to allocate a..
And along with TBD2  and TBD6, as in my separate e-mail, I find 'Binding label/SID' clumsy and would prefer a replacement such as 'Binding value'

[Cheng] Changed to - 
TBD4: Unable to allocate the specified binding value
TBD5: Unable to allocate a new binding label/SID

Tom Petch


Dhruv & Julien


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

Pce mailing list

Pce mailing list