Authors, This draft is introducing a specific type of transport profile for SR policy paths. To be more precise, it is introducing "Bandwidth Constrained Bidirectional Corouted Pinned Path SR policies" with restoration and/or reversion features enabled. I'm not sure if "Circuit-Styled" is an apt name for this specific profile, but I don't have a better alternative to offer . It is interesting how all of these TE features are being reinvented for SR policy paths.
Is "Bandwidth Constraint" the only reason for the dependency on a PCE/Controller (because of the need for a centralized Resource Reservation Manager)? Would a Bidirectional Corouted Pinned Path SR policy not be classified as "Circuit Style" if it wasn't bandwidth constrained (in other words, do you envision any "Circuit Style" SR policy without a controller in place)? If this work were to progress, I would suggest having one document in SPRING WG that discusses just the profile without getting into any PCEP/BGP specific details (TEAS WG participants would be interested given that you are modeling/defining a specific type of TE path profile; would be useful to keep them notified) and a document in PCE WG that discusses the PCEP specific procedures for this type of SR policies. The "new" PCEP protocol-extensions being proposed (in draft-sidor-pce-circuit-style-pcep-extensions) are path-control technology agnostic (don't quite agree with the proposed encodings -- but that would be a mail on the PCE list) and can potentially be discussed separately. Regards, -Pavan
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
