fatal flaw and RFC3474

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I hear that I may have caused confusion with my statement
in the ccamp session earlier this week.

The "fatal flaw" was in this text in the I-D that became RFC3474
   Note that from the perspective of the ASON model ResvErr and ResvTear
   messages are not used.  For backwards compatibility, when an ASON-
   compliant GMPLS node receives either a ResvErr or ResvTear as a
   response during the setup phase of message exchange, the GMPLS-ASON
   node should instead issue a PathTear message downstream and a PathErr
   (with Path_State_Removed flag set) message upstream.  This is so that
   RSVP states are immediately removed upon error during the setup
   process.
That text has been removed after lots of discussions. So that "fatal flaw"
is not in RFC3464 itself. But it still exists in the ITU-T spec that this
RFC refers to. This RFC3474 is just the "supportive document for the
RSVP-TE assignments made by IANA". The base protocol spec is an ITU-T
doc (G7713.2) and that was not modified (and still has not been modified
as far as I know).

My understanding was that CCAMP had send a liaison about this to ITU-RT SG15
but I cannot find it on our ietf web page with liaison statements.

So Kireeti... was it send as liaison statement or was it communicated 
otherwise. If the former, we must get it added to web pages at IETF,
if the latter, then I wonder if it should not become a formal communication.

Appology if I was not clear at the meeting.
Bert