[Pce] Re: WG Adoption of draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-05

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Support its adoption.

 

But I have the following comments:

 

1)    If the topology information is coming from the BGP-LS, should the filter be based on the information that are contained within the BGP-LS parameter only? If so, where are the information from, for provider ID TLV? Client ID TLV?

If there is other information for the PCE to gather the topology information, please state them clearly.

 

2)    For the “Protocol ID TLV” in the “IGP Domain Identifier” section, I suggest to use another name, to avoid the confusion with the “Protocol-ID” in BGP-LS------Should the “IGP Domain ID” will be more appropriate?

 

3)    Instead of defining various TLV and sub-TLV again in the PCE, I suggest to define only the necessary container only(for example, Topology-filter object, Filtering Rules TLV) and reuse the TLVs/sub-TLVs in the BGP-LS(Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Parameters <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-ls-parameters/bgp-ls-parameters.xhtml> ), which can certainly reduce the mismatch and overlap definitions.

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 7:52 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: pce-chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-05

 

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter-05

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xpbs-pce-topology-filter/

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 27th Apr 2026.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien