Re: Moving right along ... Switching Type

[George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>]

> > 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 

"MUST only" seems a bit strong.  I don't see why one should have to
reject a Sonet connection that had a Switching Type of TDM.

Perhaps "only MUST"  was the intent.

I think the actual wording should be something to the effect,

When the switching type is implied traffic-parameters the Switching
Type field is ignored.  The Switching Type field SHOULD be set to
either the implied value or to UNKNOWN.  When the switching type is
not implied by the traffic-parameters it MUST be set to one of the
values [pointer to appropriate list] other than the value UNKNOWN.

The definition of the traffic parameters of Sonet should also carry a
note that the ST of TDM is implied.

...George

> > traffic parameters are not defined. I think this solves both 
> > approaches.
> 
> Agreed.


==================================================================
George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
                     250 Apollo Drive
                     Chelmsford, Ma 01824