Re: [Pce] Pending issues with draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid Wed, 14 April 2021 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24C13A1AC9; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 03:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.209
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.209 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, FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA=2.309, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kt-RPYkQbfhF; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 03:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA2063A1AC7; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 03:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.64]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4FKzq85Vs2z5yqW; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:53:40 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=ORANGE001; t=1618397620; bh=f+ldYw/KPa2fi8XrJNHXexPSVZeRHdC431LhZkLWZ4A=; h=Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=cKPy/D3l7jZeL8LLyXWFNbRlTOCZ/KHGZptz/bT5Z9ttsyiJcK4Gy0iQdVxnQkjin 3ped+39i1bvs2qsMoqkN/FLwqCP1zuNkZ2gwgI6oScLdaVQP8b73E6dFuUoRuUr9CT Zp9xFIT5dZ8x/lj0RMXkOb510MkiHFOMLXc4UJVTsqB/6LCJEFAZk2XA/zpxZfbBcr jt/aJLpJyRZQ5v2MD0HPv5wIIsFUT6PsY2tCksfVj+1i5fMjq1n2Cf1O7tY0lCbC7/ 6D3rVti91eEGKaWTs/scaPG5Z7bWc4FBNhIIGiYiSa07tJC5Mco2ajTnyXq9N495yY B2a1XrAEgjXZg==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.57]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4FKzq84dH6zDq8C; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:53:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by exchange-eme6.itn.ftgroup ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.498.0; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:53:40 +0200
To: <>
CC: <>
References: <>
From: <>
Organization: Orange
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:53:38 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: []
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Pending issues with draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid
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: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:53:49 -0000

Hi WG,

We did not hear any objections and thus we request the authors to post
an update with a new R flag in TE-PATH-BINDING TLV as well as all the
other previously agreed changes. Regarding the term "binding label/SID",
we leave it to the authors' discretion and any further AD/IESG comment
on it.


Dhruv & Julien

On 07/04/2021 19:23, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
> We have some pending issues with draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid, as
> part of the WGLC, that needs more inputs from the WG.
> (1) Use of an explicit R flag to remove TE-PATH-BINDING TLV
> Olivier and others suggest using a new R flag to explicitly remove
> TE-PATH-BINDING. The current text requires all the TE-PATH-BINDING
> TLVs that apply from that point on to be encoded.
> A new R flag would have an impact on any existing
> implementation/deployment. Please confirm on the list (or to the
> chairs directly) if you object to the suggested change.
> (2) Use of the term "Binding Label/SID"
> Tom asked to use binding value instead.
> As per authors
> - Binding value is the term when referring to the specified value in
> the TLV
> - binding label/SID is used in the generic sense
> We also found label/SID or SID/label terms to be in use in multiple
> RFCs - RFC 8403, RFC 8660, RFC 8664, RFC 8665.
> Is the WG happy with the continued use of the term "binding label/SID"?
> (3) Flags related to SR Policy
> Adrian suggested removing them. There was no objection to this [1];
> authors are requested to act on this.
> Please provide your inputs by 13th April, so that we can make progress
> with this I-D. Working copy and Diff can be found at [2] and [3].
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list


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.