Hi Pavan, I have no concerns with the proposed change in the introduction. Thanks for adding it.
+1 to Dhruv's comment regarding section 3. It's the only logic collision I can see from going through the document to handle this. Ignoring one if both exist, rather than erroring would probably be a safer call. SR Policy taking precedence due to its use to form the key makes sense. Thanks Andrew From: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 at 11:43 PM To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupa...@gmail.com> Cc: pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-co...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-co...@ietf.org> Subject: [Pce] Re: Scope of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color draft CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi Pavan, Without my chair hat... On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 9:31 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupa...@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupa...@gmail.com>> wrote: We (authors) are working through the issues identified during the WGLC [1] and would like to seek further input from the WG on the following comment from Diego [2] regarding the scope of the draft. ** Now, I think that this PCEP extension should not be limited to RSVP-TE LSPs only. I know that colour is inherent to SR-Policy/CP and that PCEP extensions defined in draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp already cover this aspect, but there are SR-TE implementations out there that follow RFCs 8231, 8281, and 8664 that may want to add support for colour without having to implement support for draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp. ** We would like to accommodate the above change and update the "Introduction" as follows: ** This document introduces extensions to PCEP to carry the color attribute associated with paths that are setup using RSVP-TE ([RFC8408]) or Segment Routing (SR) ([RFC8664]) or any other path setup type supported under the stateful PCE model. The only exception where the extensions defined in this document are not used for carrying the color attribute is when an SR Policy path is setup using the extensions defined in [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]. For these SR Policy paths, the associated color is already included as part of the policy identifier encoding. ** Are there any concerns with making this change? Dhruv: No! Do remove this text in Section 3 - The color TLV is ignored if it shows up in the LSP Object of a message where the PCEP Path Setup Type [RFC8408] is Segment Routing or SRv6. And add text to handle the case when both Color TLV and I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp are present on the receiving side. I guess ignoring Color TLV and logging it could be a good way to handle it. Thanks! Dhruv Regards, -Pavan (on behalf of the authors) [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QDetx1Sn3LftKjcvSIRjWop82UI/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/r7VCoYKfd2fy5l8dF999Spej04U/ _______________________________________________ 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
