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
?
[Jonathan]If a retry limit is reached, the message
must not be retransmitted.
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.
[Jonathan] From Section 13.7.3: "The
DATA_LINK objects included in the LinkSummaryNack message MUST include
accpetable values for all negotiable parameters. If the
LinkSummaryNack includes DATA_LINK Objects for non-negotiable parameters,
they MUST be copied from the DATA_LINK Objects received in the
LinkSummary message."
Why isn't this enough to
indicate what's wrong with each interface
mapping?
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)?
[Jonathan]Message Id values are stored for each
TE-Link as well as data channel. The stored Message_Id values are only
updated when a message arrives with a Message_Id value that is greater than
the currently stored value.
4. CC ID can be numbered (i.e. IPv4
format) per OIF/OUNI. However, the current LMP draft does not support
it.
[Jonathan] LMP defines the CCID as a 32-bit field. For
the in-band case of OIF/OUNI, an IPv4 address could be
used.
------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
/Baktha
Muralidharan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Chelmsford, MA.