[Pce] Re: Handling of Backup TLV in draft-ietf-pce-multipath.

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Samuel,

The IANA Considerations section in the P2MP SR Policy draft should note
that early allocation for these codepoints already exists, and request that
IANA update the reference from the previous draft to the P2MP draft. No
re-allocation needed — just a reference update, and we can coordinate that
directly with IANA.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 10:58 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Samuel/All,
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Dhruv/Julien, please let me know once this update is posted and the WG is
> ready for me to proceed with IETF LC.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:18 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> One more minor update included to handle last remaining comment from AD
>> review (+ Ketan) - added following statement into Introduction:
>>
>> For SR Policy, support for [RFC9862] is a prerequisite for using the
>> multipath extensions defined in this document with SR Policy Candidate
>> Paths.
>>
>> Updated version attached.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Samuel
>>
>> *From: *Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor=[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Monday, 11 May 2026 at 12:28
>> *To: *Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *[e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>; pce-chairs <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *[Pce] Re: Handling of Backup TLV in draft-ietf-pce-multipath.
>>
>> Thanks Dhruv,
>>
>> Attaching updated version of the draft with MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV removed.
>>
>> 2 small points to highlight:
>>
>>    - IANA Codepoints related to backup TLV were removed from this draft
>>    - I assume that P2MP draft can request re-assignment of those to that
>>    draft. Or would it be better to still have some explicit text trying to
>>    remove original temporary allocations at first?
>>    - After remove backup capability from “Multipath Capability TLV”, we
>>    ended up with unused bit position:
>>
>>    0                   1                   2                   3
>>    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>   |             Type              |             Length            |
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>   |     Number of Multipaths      |            Flags    |C|F|O| |W|
>>   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>
>> I’m explicitly keeping positions of other capabilities in original
>> position to maintain backward compatibility. It is following similar change
>> done in RFC9603 (
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9603.html#name-the-srv6-pce-capability-sub
>> )
>>
>> Please let me know in case of any comments. Otherwise I’ll submit updated
>> version tomorrow.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Samuel
>>
>> *From: *Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Thursday, 7 May 2026 at 18:42
>> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *[e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>; pce-chairs <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail] <
>> [e-mail]>; Adrian Farrel <
>> [e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *Handling of Backup TLV in draft-ietf-pce-multipath.
>>
>> Hi WG,
>>
>> Following up on the discussion about handling the Backup TLV in
>> draft-ietf-pce-multipath.
>>
>> We have not seen further discussion on the list. This was discussed
>> before, and some authors shared their reasoning for keeping it.
>>
>> >From the chairs' perspective, the preferred way forward to make progress
>> on the document is to move the handling of the Backup TLV out of this
>> document, preferably including it in the SR Policy P2MP I-D where it is
>> used. This could be done with an appropriate disclaimer that this TLV might
>> also apply to P2P in the future. An alternative is to define it in a
>> separate, independent I-D, but that would use more WG cycles than necessary.
>>
>> We believe this approach allows the current document to progress without
>> being blocked while providing a clear path for the Backup TLV work to
>> continue. We ask the authors to please proceed along these lines.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dhruv & Julien
>>
>