RE: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts

[Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>]

At 12:57 PM 12/17/2001, Kullberg, Alan wrote:

>Lou,
>
>See comments below.
>
>Alan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [<mailto:lberger@movaz.com>mailto:lberger@movaz.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 3:19 PM
> > To: manoj juneja
> > Cc: Eric.Mannie@ebone.com; dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be;
> > ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
> >
> >
> > see comments inline.
> >
> > At 09:10 PM 12/13/2001, manoj juneja wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > >From: "manoj juneja" <manojkumarjuneja@hotmail.com>
> > > >To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > >Subject: Comments on GMPLS signalling drafts
> > > >Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:15:10 -0700
> > > >
>
>[snip, snip]
>
> > > >4. For IF_ID_RSVP_HOP object, there are couple of TLVs
> > defined. What
> > > >about the Component_If_Id_Downstream/Upstream TLV ? The revised
> > > >bundling draft has removed these 2 TLVs. What about the
> > GMPLS signalling
> > > >drafts ?
> > > >
> >
> > It's still in, see the drafts for explanations.
>
> From section 8.1 of draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt,
>
>    In all cases but bundling, see [MPLS-BUNDLE], the
>    upstream interface is implied by the downstream interface.  For
>    bundling, the path sender explicitly identifies the component
>    interface used in each direction.
>
>The latest bundling draft (draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-01.txt) doesn't
>support this statement as far as I can tell.  The bundling draft
>now specifies to use type 1, 2, or 3 in the IF_ID TLV, but never
>type 4 or 5.  This is in conflict with generalized-rsvp-te-06.
>I don't think the bundle draft can be used as the reference here
>or in generalized-signaling-07, section 9.1.1, since there is a
>contradicion between the 2 drafts.

The reference is to provide context on bundling, not operation.  The 
reference will be dropped.

Lou