Re: CCAMP WG action items

[Zhi-Wei Lin <zwlin@lucent.com>]

Hi Lou,

I've had several people explain the "switching type" field to me, and
yet I still don't think that it is needed.

Can you or anyone else provide a concrete example of how this is used?
For example, across the UNI, within the network (I-NNI), across two
domains (E-NNI).

Thanks for any clarification.

Zhi

BTW, which comment was this field addressing?



Lou Berger wrote:
> 
> At 12:15 PM 8/8/01, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> >    draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt
> >    draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-04.txt
> >    draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-05.txt
> 
> Here's a summary of what changed in this rev of the drafts:
> o Fixed Label Set format (for LDP)
>          [Increased field size to match LDP type field size]
> o Added Switching type of LSP being requested
>          [This field was in an earlier version of the drafts]
>          [Is required for links that support multiple switching types]
> o Added Administrative Status Information
>          [To address last call comments (notably from the
>                  carrier community)]
> o Added section on Control Channel Separation
>      Covers:
>      - Separation of control and data channels
>          [To address last call comments (notably from the
>                  carrier community)]
>      - Restoration of state post control channel failures
>          [Again to address last call comments, is required by
>           control / data channel separation.]
> o Other minor editorial and clarification text
>          [some based on comments received]
> 
> So far the following changes are planned based on comments received since
> the above were issued:
> - Update LSP Encoding Type to remove redundant SONET/SDH types
> - Use a new object type rather than suggested_label when supporting restart
>          - to simplify restart processing
> - Add some clarification text on error processing and when an LSP is usable
> - Add IANA considerations section
> 
> That's it,
> Lou