PCE-Based Computation Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures-08

I like the proposed experiment (and that it is an experiment), and I think this document's well written.

Thanks for discussing the point below with me.  The result of the discussion is that the working group considers the number of bits to be sufficient to allocate this one, and can always allocate an experimental bit later if this seems to become common.

Former DISCUSS point, resolved:
I have one simple point of DISCUSSion about the code point assignment in the RP Object Flag Field registry.  I see from the archive that it does appear to have been discussed in the working group -- there's an unfortunate lack of any record of discussion after working group adoption (though much discussion before), but the registration request was removed in -04, and then put back in in -06 after Adrian's review.  Here's my question:

The RP Object Flag Field registry only has 18 bits left, and you aim to take one of them for this experiment, for which the shepherd writeup notes that "Implementation beyond prototype is not clear."  Do you really want to take up a permanent bit just for this, even if the experiment turns out to fail (or to be unimplemented or undeployed)?

Might it be better to allocate a bit for experimental use, and to use that for this experiment, allowing use of that same bit for other experiments as well?  It would mean that if this one does take off, you'd have to switch later to a non-experimental bit.  Or are you really quite sure that this *will* take off, and you'll need the bit for sure?  (Or, alternatively, are you quite sure that 18 bits is well and truly enough, and you don't care?)

Thank you for addressing my question with additional text in the security considerations section.