Thanks again, Pavan.
[snip] I read: This color attribute is used as a guiding criterion for mapping services onto the TE tunnel I took this to mean a guide for a classifier to know what traffic to place on the TE tunnel. I.e., the second option. [VPB] Yes, using color for mapping services onto the TE tunnel is a target use case. As an example, for a BGP-based service, the originating PE could attach some community, e.g., the Color Extended Community [RFC9012], with the service route. A receiving PE could use locally configured policies to associate service routes carrying Color Extended Community 'X' with a TE Tunnel of color 'Y'. Using BGP Color Extended Community is just one approach for mapping services onto a TE Tunnel tagged with a color - the draft does not advocate any specific approach (standardized or otherwise). Actually, for this to be of use, it is not enough to tag the TE tunnel with a color, you also have to define how traffic is mapped to that color. You have covered this with: The mechanism used at the PCC for appropriately mapping services onto a TE path that is tagged with a color attribute is outside the scope of this document. [VPB] Yes, the actual mechanism for mapping services is outside the scope of this document. So, perhaps I am reading too much into the utility and purpose (“intent”) of this work. You are just defining a “TE tunnel tag (color)” that can be used in the future by some other process yet to be defined. Is this clear in the document? If so, then we can close this point. [VPB] Yes, this document just defines a protocol mechanism to associate a color tag (representing "intent") with a TE tunnel. The usage is defined elsewhere. The onus is on the document that uses the color TLV to describe the corresponding use case in detail (Example: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-multipath). Please advise on how we can make this more apparent in the document. [AF] Perhaps… OLD This document introduces extensions to PCEP to carry the color attribute tagged with TE paths that are set up using RSVP-TE ([RFC8408]) or Segment Routing (SR) ([RFC8664]) or any other path setup type supported under the stateful PCE model. NEW This document introduces extensions to PCEP to allow a color tag to be assigned to any path operated under a stateful PCE model (including those set up using RSVP-TE [RFC8408] or Segment Routing (SR) [RFC8664]). The use of this color tag is beyond the scope of this document. END … or some reworking of this text that makes you happy. Cheers, Adrian
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
