Thanks, Dhruv.
“draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-03” submitted, which fixed typo
from previous mail.
Regards,
Samuel
From: Pce <pce-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 5:43 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensi...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Early code point allocation for
draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-02
Hi WG,
We received no objections and thus will be going ahead with the early
allocation process.
Authors,
Can you fix the following error and post a new version? We would then trigger
the allocation process...
OLD:
8.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY
[RFC8231] defines the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. IANA is requested to
make the following assignment from the "STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
Flag Field" registry:
NEW:
8.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY
[RFC8231] defines the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV. IANA is requested to
make the following assignment from the "STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
Flag Field" registry:
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:29 PM Dhruv Dhody
<d...@dhruvdhody.com<mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote:
Hi WG,
We have received a request from the authors of
draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions for an early code point allocation
for the codepoints listed in -
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-02.html#section-8.1
(TBD1-2)
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-02.html#section-8.2
(TBD3)
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-02.html#section-8.3
(TBD4)
RFC 7120 requires one to meet the following criteria to proceed:
b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
(henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
in an Internet-Draft.
c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., if
there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria or believes that
early allocation is not appropriate for any other reason, please send an email
to the PCE mailing list explaining why. If the chairs hear no objections by
Wednesday, Feb 21st, we will kick off the early allocation request.
Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
--- Begin Message ---
A new version of Internet-Draft
draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-03.txt has been successfully
submitted by Samuel Sidor and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions
Revision: 03
Title: PCEP extensions for Circuit Style Policies
Date: 2024-02-22
Group: pce
Pages: 13
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-03.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions/
HTML:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-03.html
HTMLized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions
Diff:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions-03
Abstract:
This document proposes a set of extensions for Path Computation
Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Circuit Style Policies -
Segment-Routing Policy designed to satisfy requirements for
connection-oriented transport services. New TLV is introduced to
control path recomputation and new flag to add ability to request
path with strict hops only.
The IETF Secretariat
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
