Re: [Pce] Please review draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt

Hi Adrian,

Please see -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koldychev-pce-operational/

To me the above I-D reads as a clarifications to RFC 8231, but I do
see some possible updates (section 3.3 regarding explicitly making
PCReq optional before PCRpt).

IMHO it would be good to keep the actual updates (to RFC8231) and
clarifications in different document and scope (standards track v/s
informational) if possible.

Thoughts?

Authors, please chime in.
Would be good to discuss this aspect in the WG meeting.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:50 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
> This is currently a simple draft, and in that form I think it might be
> pushed through publication really fast. So now is a good time to review it.
>
> If, on the other hand, someone has  further 8231 clarification they want to
> make, now is the time to bring it up.
>
> Best,
> Adrian
> --
> Read some fairy stories for adults of all ages
> .. Tales from the Wood
> .. More Tales from the Wood
> .. Tales from Beyond the Wood
> .. Tales from the Castle
> Get them on line https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
> Or buy a signed copy from me by post
> *** Stop me in the corridor at IETF-105 to get a copy ***
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 24 June 2019 08:04
> To: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: [Pce] New draft draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
>
> Hi,
>
> While reviewing draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-request I noticed that RFC 8231
> is missing clarity about how to handle the Flags field in the SRP object.
> RFC 8281 uses one of the Flags, but doesn't add the clarity.
>
> This very short document seeks to add clarity so that future implementations
> know how set and process unknown/unassigned bits in the Flags field. It
> updates RFC 8231 (if published as an RFC).
>
> Your thoughts would be helpful.
>
> Dhruv suggests there may be other clarifications to 8231 that are needed. If
> so, I'd be happy to roll them all together.
>
> Best,
> Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> Sent: 24 June 2019 07:53
> To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Adrian Farrel and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags
> Revision:       00
> Title:          Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request Parameters
> Flags
> Document date:  2019-06-24
> Group:          Individual Submission
> Pages:          5
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags/
> Htmlized:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-00
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags
>
>
> Abstract:
>    Extensions to the Path Computation Element communications Protocol
>    (PCEP) to support stateful Path Computation Elements (PCEs) are
>    defined in RFC 8231.  One of the extensions is the Stateful PCE
>    Request Parameters (SRP) object.  That object includes a Flags field
>    that is a set of 32 bit flags, and RFC 8281 defines an IANA registry
>    for tracking assigned flags.  However, RFC 8231 does not explain how
>    an implementation should set unassigned flags in transmitted
>    messages, nor how an implementation should process unassigned,
>    unknown, or unsupported flags in received messages.
>
>    This document updates RFC 8231 by defining the correct behaviors.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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