[{"author": "Julien Meuric", "text": "<p><span aria-label=\"sweat smile\" class=\"emoji emoji-1f605\" role=\"img\" title=\"sweat smile\">:sweat_smile:</span></p>", "time": "2026-03-17T08:22:05.000Z"}, {"author": "Marina Fizgeer", "text": "<p>Hi. Maybe it shall be done under some flag/capability? Then, in future we can have option for PCE taking delegation as well</p>", "time": "2026-03-17T08:38:07.000Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Stone", "text": "<p>The draft currently proposes a section for potential capability advertisement, specifically to say the implementation absolutely follows this draft. It doesn't signal whether the PCE should request delegation because that's still not enough information, but it does ensure to PCE that it doesn't need to request delegation of the path</p>", "time": "2026-03-17T08:40:03.000Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Stone", "text": "<p>i.e the PCE can trust with absolutely certainty that it does not need to request delegation. </p>\n<p>Compared to today it has no idea in either direction.</p>", "time": "2026-03-17T08:40:54.000Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Stone", "text": "<p>if someone then wants to signal \"hey, you need to request delegation from me\" then that can be done, but, for the PCE to know when/why needs further extensions anyways so it's not worth signalling that information to not restrict that solution</p>", "time": "2026-03-17T08:41:51.000Z"}, {"author": "Julien Meuric", "text": "<p><a href=\"https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9604.html\">https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9604.html</a></p>", "time": "2026-03-17T08:46:14.000Z"}, {"author": "Samuel Sidor", "text": "<p>Thanks Julien. Just to respond to original question here as well (even if that was explained on the call) - that RFC is just specifying how to encode BSID, who should allocate it, but not whether it can be used in the path-computation in the path of other policy.</p>", "time": "2026-03-17T08:59:22.000Z"}]