Re: Comment on draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-09

["Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>]

Lou,
           for me it is ok.   Moreover I don't think that such a change
will need a rev of the doc.

Diego.



Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com> on 16/10/2002 18.10.56

To:   "Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
cc:   <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>

Subject:  Re: Comment on draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-09


Diego,
         As you point out [RFC2961], aka, refresh reduction, allows for
what your are asking for.  So the current draft does as well.  I see no
reason for a text change.  (At most I'd replace the text "refresh
reduction" with [RFC2961], I have no problem doing this iff there is
another rev of the document.)

Lou

At 10:57 AM 10/15/2002, Diego Caviglia wrote:

>Hi all,
>        a comment on the draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-09.
>
>On page 13 last sentence of Section 4.3.1 is stated that the MESSAGE_ID
and
>related objects are defined in [RFC2961] and are used when refresh
>reductions is supported.
>
>What about the case I want to use MessageId and MessageId Ack just in
order
>to improve the reliability of the G.RSVP-TE message transmission?
>
>Moreover RFC2961 page 5 last sentence of Section 2 states:
>"Note, a node that supports reliable RSVP message delivery (Section 4)but
>not Bundle and Srefresh messages, will not set the
>Refresh-Reduction-Capable bit." that in my understanding means that I can
>use MessageID and MessageID Ack without implementing refresh reduction.
Is
>it correct?  If yes can you please correct the Section 4.3.1 sentence?
>
>Best Regards
>
>                Diego
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Diego Caviglia
>Optical Network - ASON strategy
>E-mail: diego.caviglia@marconi.com
>Tel: +39 0 10 6003 808
>Via A. Negrone 1A 16153 Genoa (Italy)
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Fatti non foste a viver come bruti
>ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza
>
>Dante Alighieri Inferno Canto XXVI
>
>
>