RE: Moving right along ... Switching Type

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

seems fine

-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 5:21 PM
To: Dimitri Papadimitriou
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Moving right along ... Switching Type 


Dimitri,

> We have two approaches either "traffic-parameters" are used
> (in SENDER_TSPEC) then i think the Switching Type capability 
> is useless or they aren't then such field could be optionaly
> used when applicable (some examples are given in the routing
> document).
> 
> Wouldn't be the right way to proceed by defining an "unknown"
> or "unspecified" value used when "traffic-parameters" are 
> included within the Path Message and optional use the ones 
> proposed in the current version of the specification when they 
> aren't. This field is thus optional and MUST only be used when 
> traffic parameters are not defined. I think this solves both 
> approaches.

Agreed.
  
Yakov.