Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

Hi Girish,

Due to the very different levels of maturity between stateful-pce and 
MBB I-Ds, we do not see them merging. MBB I-D was very briefly discussed 
on the list a while ago, we do not know what the plans of the authors are...

Regards,

Julien

Oct. 12, 2015 - girish134@gmail.com:
>
> piggy backing on Dhruv email ...
>
> During PCUpdate for SR LSP -  MBB process mentioned in 
> draft-tanaka-pce-stateful-pce-mbb applicable? The MBB draft has 
> expired, will it be incorporated in stateful-pce draft?
>
> Thanks,
> Girish
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com 
> <mailto:dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Authors,
>
>     In the stateful PCE draft [1], it says –
>
>     The LSP Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt
>
>     messages for RSVP-signaled LSPs.
>
>     The SR draft [2] did not mention anything about LSP Identifier TLV.
>
>     And in implementations that I am aware of, SR-TE LSP still uses
>     the LSP-Identifier TLV. Is that correct? (I personally think so!!)
>
>     If yes, do you think there is a need to update –
>
>     -[1] to say all LSPs (and not just RSVP-signaled).
>
>     -Or [2] to say that LSP-Identifier TLV are also applicable to SR
>     and MUST be included.
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     Dhruv
>
>     [1]
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-11#section-7.3.1
>
>     [2] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing/
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Pce mailing list
>     Pce@ietf.org <mailto:Pce@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce