Re: Label type to be used

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Ben,

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Ben Mack-Crane wrote:

> The original text seems to have a sensible pattern.
> The proposed changed text does not.

Your responses below don't bear out your comment above: your
implementation uses port labels for [PSC, TDM/transparent], but the
original text says to use SUKLM.

The sensibility of the pattern is also questionable; an equally
sensible pattern is to use port labels for [x, TDM/transparent].

> In reviewing the discussion so far, it seems to me the best solution
> is to leave the text as is, understanding that switches capable of
> handling both TDM channelized switching as well as fully transparent
> (port or lambda) switching advertise multiple switching types.

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that the best solution is
to leave the text as is.  So far, there's been uniform agreement to
change the text, with Ashok counted as an abstention ("I won't really
object").

The main point, though, is to come to a meaningful position that also
jives with current implementations -- ultimately, standards are to
enable interoperable implementations.

<snipped>

> >Please respond by Friday 3/26, 5pm PST with comments on:
> >
> >a) do you agree with the above change?
> >
> No.
>
> >b) in your implementation today, what do expect the label to represent
> >   i) in the case of [PSC, LSC]?
> >
> Lambda.
>
> >   ii) in the case of [PSC, TDM] with a fully transparent signal?
> >
> Port.
>
> >c) if you implement as the draft says, would it be a hardship to change
> >   this?
> >
> Yes.

Noted.

Kireeti.
-------