[Pce] 答复: [pce] :New Version Notification for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt

<xiong.quan@zte.com.cn> Tue, 03 December 2019 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
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 DC8CF120114 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 22:49:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 eqXdbHHiu7pa for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 22:49:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92F6612011A for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 22:49:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id CD5DD79C655A3454F109; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:49:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id B024A995FA924EFCCEA8; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:49:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp01.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.200]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id xB36n6WF024833; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:49:06 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:49:05 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 14:49:05 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa5de60561e19dffb0
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201912031449055664654@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <07fc01d5a913$75b29bd0$6117d370$@olddog.co.uk>
References: CAB75xn6DuwZFSk0KLQcotz0M0tMNsNTmWf5Sa3T0Bso4wg4e8g@mail.gmail.com, 201912020932468871773@zte.com.cn, CAB75xn7fQA32i+E_qeCancJk8vfjyHEiEotq=xekBpUAfZN6Eg@mail.gmail.com, 07fc01d5a913$75b29bd0$6117d370$@olddog.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, andrew.stone@nokia.com, loa@pi.nu, pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn xB36n6WF024833
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/jWIxV5c_USgM9qoxFNTHXipPz-Y>
Subject: [Pce] 答复: [pce] :New Version Notification for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 06:49:36 -0000

Hi Adrian and Dhruv,






Thanks for your suggestion!  I will consider the option as defined in RFC5088.


I will update the draft as we discussed as soon as possible.


More comments and suggestions are welcome!






Best Regards,


Quan










原始邮件



发件人:AdrianFarrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
收件人:'Dhruv Dhody' <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>;熊泉00091065;
抄送人:'Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)' <andrew.stone@nokia.com>;'Loa Andersson' <loa@pi.nu>;pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>;
日 期 :2019年12月02日 21:22
主 题 :RE: [Pce] [pce] :New Version Notification for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt




Hi,

I wouldn't object to any solution.
- What Dhruv suggests
- Just 32 bits and define a new TLV if more bits are ever needed

Best,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> 
Sent: 02 December 2019 05:28
To: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Cc: Farrel Adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <andrew.stone@nokia.com>; Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] [pce] :New Version Notification for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.txt

Hi Quan,

> But for the last issue, I am not sure if the length of 32 bits is good or not. If 32 bits is enough for the extensions of other I-Ds?
>
> What is your suggestion?

I can think of one case: PCE capability flags in [1], where we defined
it as an array of units of 32-bit flags   numbered from the most
significant as bit zero, where  each bit represents one flag. In the
corresponding IANA registry [2], we maintained it as 32 bits for now,
which can be easily updated by a future document when needed.

As a WG contributor, I think it is better to be future proof even
though 32 bits seems good enough at the present.

Thanks!
Dhruv


[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5088#section-4.5
[2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ospfv2-parameters/ospfv2-parameters.xhtml#ospfv2-parameters-14