Comments on LMP

[Baktha Muralidharan <muralidb@cisco.com>]

Hi Jonathan,

        

Looks the
following comments that I sent some time ago

        

got
lost.

Thanks,

/Baktha


> X-Sender: muralidb@funnel.cisco.com
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:02:27 -0500
> To: Jonathan Lang <jplang@calient.net>
> From: Baktha Muralidharan <muralidb@cisco.com>
> Subject: Comments on LMP
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, muralidb@cisco.com
>
> Hi Jonathan
>
>          We have the following
> comments on LMP draft 3:
> --------------------------------------------------
> 1. In the current LMP draft
> (draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-03.txt), section 7 talks
>    about Message ID usage. It states,
>
>            
> "Unacknowledged messages sent with the MESSAGE_ID object 
>             
> SHOULD be retransmitted until the message is acknowledged
>             
> or until a retry limit is reached."
>
>    What are the subsequent actions that need to take place when
> the
>    above conditions occur ?
>
> 2. When Nacking a link summary, the current message format doesn’t allow
> indicate
>    what's wrong with each interface mapping..
> "per-interface" error codes would
>    be helpful. i.e. The TE link and each data link object in
> the Nack message
>    needs an error code to localize the failure.
>
> 3. When a channel status msg is received with message ID less than
> an earlier (TE-Link) message, it might still be accepted per the 
> draft. So, in the case where it is accepted, should the accepted
>    message ID become the basis for all future message ID
> (validations)?
>   
> 4. CC ID can be numbered (i.e. IPv4 format) per OIF/OUNI. However, the
> current LMP
>    draft does not support it.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks,
>
> /Baktha Muralidharan
> Cisco Systems, Inc.
> Chelmsford, MA.