Re: [Pce] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Young,

FWIW, the IANA already manages several similar registries with the same 3 entries (e.g., https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/lmp-parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15" rel="nofollow">https://www.iana.org/assignments/lmp-parameters/lmp-parameters.xhtml#lmp-parameters-15). Creating one will help addressing this concern raised by Alexey and Benjamin.

Thanks,

Julien

On 07/02/2019 02:27, Leeyoung wrote:

What is the mechanism for extensibility of future Link Identifier sub-TLV types?  Should there be a registry?

 

YL>>  I am not sure if we need reserve for future interface type. Typical PCEP/GMPLS RFCs do not go beyond this three types and the unnumbered type is flexible enough to accommodate other types than IPv4 and IPv6.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.