Re: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts

[Fong Liaw <fongliaw@yahoo.com>]

Lou

I am happy to see my interest protected, however
I think manoj is asking to insert the "optimization
vs. correctness" text into the draft. Right now,
-07 text says a node with higher node id MUST send
a PathErr etc. this does not allow for different
behavior.

I would suggest to change the text slightly as
following:

"To resolve contention, the node with the higher node
ID will
   win the contention and it MUST issue a 
   ^^^ resolve 
PathErr/NOTIFICATION message
^^^^^^^PathErr/Path/Notification         
   with a "Routing problem/Label allocation failure"
indication.  " 
               ^ for the LSP that loses in the
resolution.

We can also specify the default behavior is that
"the LSP requested by a higher node id wins the 
resolution."

Regards,
-Fong

> > >
> > >7. There is an example scenario for contention
> resolution in case of bi-
> > >directional LSPs. It should be mentioned that  :
> > >
> > >"contention resolution is an optimization, not a
> correctness issue ...
> > >and no procedure can provide optimal resolution
> in all cases. An
> > >implementor
> > >may do differently to provide better resolution."
> > >
> > >The above quotes are extracted from one of the
> mails from Fong Liaw.
> > >
> > >If this is the case then this should be mentioned
> in the drafts.
> > >
> 
> Read the Acknowledgments section of the draft.  (I'm
> sure Fong will be 
> happy to see you protecting her interests!)
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com