Looks like I was somewhat right with “unpopular” 😊
Of course an (unpopular) option would be to tell the PCE WG that it is not acceptable to use the RSVP-TE registries in this way, and let them know that if they want to specify paths for other uses they should use a new PCEP ERO and RRO Object-Type and a new registry of subobjects. In many ways, that would be so much cleaner, but it would break RFC 8664 implementations. Dhruv: (also addressing Huaimo), to me this is a bit overkill. We would need to update a lot of documents. Of course if the situation changes nothing would stop us from moving in this direction in future, but I dont think we are there yet! [AF] I don’t believe “a lot of documents” would need to be updated. You wouldn’t be changing the fact that it is an ERO. You’d keep the same Object Class value. You’d just be changing the Object Type used in the case of SR. So none of the legacy documents that refer to the inclusion of an ERO would change. AFAICS it would be just 8664 that would be changed. [AF] I’m not lobbying for this (despite it being the “right thing to do”), but let’s make any decisions based on a balanced view. Adrian
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
