Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03

Hi Quan,

Path segment reuses the bit (and does not define a new bit) see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:40 PM <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi Dhruv,
>
>
> Thanks for your suggestion! I agree with you to cite the draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position as an example.
>
> But I am not sure about the two wg drafts including draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06 and draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03. As far as I know, the last unassigned bit in LSP object is bit 0. It is not enough for the two drafts.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Quan
>
>
>
> 原始邮件
> 发件人：DhruvDhody
> 收件人：熊泉00091065;
> 抄送人：pce@ietf.org;
> 日 期 ：2021年02月22日 11:48
> 主 题 ：Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
> Hi Quan,
>
> To clarify,
>
> - draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid is asking for the allocation in the
> existing LSP Object Flag Field, after this allocation, there won't be
> any flags left.
> - as an example of usage of the new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV, you should
> site draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position!
>
> Hope this helps you with the text in your draft!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:06 AM <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn> wrote:
> >
> > Hi  Adrian and Julien,
> >
> >
> > Many thanks for your suggestions!
> >
> > I fully agree with you. The two wg drafts could be viewed as two implementations to use the flag carried in LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV.
> >
> > I will add informative references to those two drafts if necessary.  And I also suggest those two drafts could add references to the draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Quan
> >
> >
> > >Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
> >
> > Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 19 February 2021 16:05 UTCShow header
> >
> > >Ah, that's useful. Thanks Julien.
> >
> > >Makes this work more pressing.
> >
> > >Informative references to those two drafts would help focus the reviewer's mind and might be handy when this draft overtakes those other two documents and goes to the IESG.
> >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Adrian
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: julien.meuric@orange.com <julien.meuric@orange.com> Sent: 19 February 2021 14:38
> > To: adrian@olddog.co.ukCc: pce@ietf.orgSubject: Re: [Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
> >
> > >Hi Adrian,
> >
> > >Thank you for your feedback.
> >
> > >If evidence is needed, how about binding label?https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-06#section-11.2Note it's also reused inhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-sr-path-segment-03#section-4.2Have a nice week-end,
> >
> > >Julien
> >
> >
> > On 18/02/2021 16:57, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > > Thanks to the authors for cleaning this up a lot since last time.
> > >
> > > I don't object to adoption. Would be nice to have evidence of someone
> > > needing a bit now, but by the time this becomes an RFC it is reasonably
> > > possible.
> > >
> > > Adrian
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> > > Sent: 01 February 2021 17:48
> > >
> > > Hi WG,
> > >
> > > This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03.
> > >
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03>
> > > This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by
> > > defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing
> > > sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.
> > >
> > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#lsp-object-flag-field>
> > > Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons
> > > - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are
> > > you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to
> > > the list.
> > >
> > > Please respond by Monday 15th Feb.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Dhruv & Julien
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pce mailing list
> > > Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pce mailing list
> > > Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > 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@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>