Re: GMPLS Issue - Ethernet LSP Enc Type

[George Newsome <gnewsome@lucent.com>]

Lou Berger wrote:
> 
> At 10:55 AM 12/18/2001, Ben Mack-Crane wrote:
> 
> >The following issue raised 10/29/01 has not been addressed.
> 
> I disagree.  We talked in person on this and I said the same thing on the list.
> 
> > > >1) There seems to be no difference as far as label allocation
> > > >    is concerned between LSP Encoding Types Ethernet V2/DIX (2)
> > > >    and Ethernet 802.3 (10).  One Encoding type would seem to
> > > >    be sufficient.
> > >
> > > I agree, but some feel that this is needed to properly establish LSPs in
> > > systems what would terminate each type differently.
> >
> >I don't recall seeing anything on the list about the reasoning about this.
> >can someone provide a pointer to where this was described?
> 
> As I mentioned at the IETF, it was in private discussions.
> 
> >Since LSP Encoding type is intended to describe the LSP for transit nodes
> >and G-PID is intended to describe the LSP contents for the purpose of
> >terminating it at the ends, information relevant only to termination
> >should be conveyed in G-PID.
> >
> >Perhaps changing the name of this LSP Encoding Type to "Ethernet Phy"
> >would make this clearer.
> 
> The current wording is what was agreed to.
> 

So if I understand this correctly, the wording that you allude to was
agreed in private discusions?

Without public discussion, it seems hard to claim that the issue has
been resolved, and Ben is clearly not satisfied.

Regards

	George