Thank you so much! This is definitely a good way to facilitate a discussion in a WG.
I will prepare a slide of this, and share in IETF 120, so guys please, share your comments 😊 Respect, Cheng From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Sent: Saturday, July 6, 2024 3:53 PM To: Cheng Li <c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] Re: Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded? Hi Cheng, To facilitate this discussion I have created a notes page - https://notes.ietf.org/draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space?view that documents the various options. WG, Feel free to add things there but add your name for easy tracking. You can also add your preference for a solution and with reasoning at the bottom or simply reply on this thread and I can keep the notes page updated. Hope the WG finds this useful and it helps in converging on a way forward... Thanks! Dhruv On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:46 AM Cheng Li <c.l=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: Hi Guys， Thank you so much for your helpful review and comments of our draft draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space. In the WG adoption, I can summarize our discussion into the below bullets, hope they are correct, 1. The draft is useful, and the mechanism defined in the draft is needed, we should work on it. (Thanks!) 2. We need to discuss the where the info should be carried in the PCEP. Open Object seems not so good ☹ 3. TLV encoding should be updated to be more generic or let's avoid the generic description and define specific sub-TLVs as needed. I see the reasons why we decided to carry the info in PCEP Open Object, because it is a device-wide configuration info, which should not be modified in the running state. We may face a lot of trouble of removing some IDs and then modify the range in a running network. However, we may also need to handle the negotiation between PCC and PCE? Therefore, I am also concerning about this. I like to hear your voice on this, which object/msg is appropriate to carry the info? I am open with other options. Possible options could be • Open message • Use PCEP-LS encoding and make this a node attribute • New type of notification • New message/object Once we get the conclusion of this, we can go to the bullet 3, which is much easier that bullet 2. IMHO, I will prefer to define sub-TLVs one by one, this can decouple the relations between IDs, though we may need to delete the 'generic' words. Thoughts? Cheng _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org<mailto:pce-le...@ietf.org>
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
