RE: I-D ACTION:draft-berger-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt

["Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com>]

Hi Alan,

I support this proposal, otherwise the wording is still
confusing as you say.

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Kullberg Alan-G19424 [mailto:alan.kullberg@motorola.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:46 PM
To: 'Lou Berger'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-berger-gmpls-egress-control-00.txt


Hi Lou,

I have a few typo fixes below as well as this comment.
In section 2.1 ERO Procedures, it says "the label is copied
into a new Label_Set object."

I understand the intent of this statement, but this may mislead
people into thinking that the signaling of the LSP continues
beyond the current (egress) node.

Perhaps that sentence and the one following it could be reworded
as follows:
   If the U-bit of the
   subobject being examined is clear (0), then the value of the label is
   used for downstream traffic associated with the LSP.  This label value
   MUST be used for transmitting traffic associated
   with the LSP on the indicated outgoing/downstream interface.

And to make the next paragraph consistent, I would add the word
MUST as follows:
   Specifically, the label value MUST be used for


Now for typos:

In the Abstract change "know and" to "known as":
   Such control is also known as "Egress Control".

In 2. Egress Control Procedures, change "that section" to "those sections":
   The procedures described in those sections...

In 2.1. ERO Procedures, change "unicast" to "unidirectional":
   If the associated LSP is unidirectional...

Regards,
Alan