RE: Proposed response to the Liaison Statement on LMP Link Verifi cation

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Lyndon,

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Ong, Lyndon wrote:

> Maybe everyone is tired out :o)  In any case, I think
> a liaison response is certainly a good idea, and you
> deserve some thanks for putting it together and attempting
> to reach some consensus on the list.

To give credit where it's due, there were many who helped; there were
also many replies to the first version that helped shape this one.

> Just wanted to clarify one point, though - the liaison says
> that compared to G.7714.1 messages
>
> > "GMPLS identifiers are typically 32 bit numbers and as such are not
> > printable characters."
>
> Maybe it's a fine point, but the messages in G.7714.1 are described
> in bit-oriented format, not as characters; the Base64 encoding is
> then applied to the message before it goes out on the trace, so that
> what is sent on the wire is in the form of printable characters.
>
> That means that 32 bit numbers can still be carried in the message,
> subject to the length limit.  A decoding would be applied at the other
> end to recover the original bit-oriented message.
> (Folks who worked on 7714.1 can correct me if I'm wrong on this).

Well, the liaison has already been sent.  However, if necessary we can
clarify this at the interim ITU SG14/15 meeting in a couple of weeks.

Thanks for your comments,
Kireeti.