Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-10

[Oscar González de Dios <[e-mail]>]

Dear PCErs,

   First of all, I must say that standardizing a way to de-standardize a
protocol is weird. The document draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-10
defines a new object and a new TLV to carry proprietary information. Thus,
two implementations will never interwork properly if they use this I-D. Of
course, the object can be ignored, but also, the information of the object
is lost. And if the intention is to be used only internally by vendors,
why standardize it? You can add to your implementation whatever new object
or TLV you have in mind, you are not going to interop with anybody
anywayŠ.

   As nothing can be done about that (the ID was adopted by the WG long
time ago), let's focus on what can be done now to foster interoperabilityŠ

   Ramon, Cyril and Robert raised very good issues about grammars and
having several documents that do not cover all the objects in them. Given
that the ordering is STRICT, it is highly important to have a clear
grammar, with ZERO interpretation margin.

   My suggestion is that now, when most of the extensions to PCEP are
quite mature, we could have an ID covering the grammar of RFC 5440 +
mature stateless PCE extensions. This is something I had in mind long time
ago, as it would be the best way to facilitate the interoperability.


   Best Regards,

        Oscar



________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx