WG Last Call Completed: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-03.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Authors,

The WG last call for this draft has completed.
No comments were made on the list, but a private comment was sent to the chairs as below.

I suggest you either:
- make the change suggested by Kireeti *and* reference Lou's new egress control draft
or
- simply add a reference to Lou's new draft.

When you have done this we can pass the draft to the ADs.

Thanks,
Adrian

======

Hi Adrian and Kireeti,

Would it be possible to include in the following the text for section 3.3 as proposed
after the ietf58 meeting by Kireeti:

<http://psg.com/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2003/msg01015.html>

"Suggested change of text for the Overlay draft:

REPLACE:

3.3. Explicit Label Control

    In order to support explicit label control and full identification of
    the egress link an ingress edge-node may include an ERO that consists
    of only the last hop.  This is signaled by setting the first
    subobject of the ERO to the node-ID of the egress core-node with the
    L-bit set.  Following this subobject are all other subobjects
    necessary to identify the link and labels as they would normally
    appear.

WITH:

3.3. Explicit Label Control

    In order to support explicit label control and full identification of
    the egress link, an ingress edge-node may include an ERO whose last
    group of subobjects are set as follows:
       subobject identifying the egress core-node (CN3);
       subobject identifying the link I downstream of CN3 (if needed);
       subobject identifying the label(s) L1 and L2 on link I (if needed)

                                      U1/D1      I:U2/D2
         EN1 ------- CN1 ------- CN2 ------- CN3 ------- EN2

    These may be the only subobjects in the ERO, or there may be others
    preceding them.

    The subobject identifying the egress core-node MAY have the L-bit
    set.  If so, the egress core-node SHOULD NOT send a PathErr, despite
    section 5.1.1 of RFC 3473.

    On receiving such an ERO, the egress core-node CN3 MUST cross-connect
    the downstream label D1 that it sends to its upstream node CN2 with
    the downstream explicit label D2 associated with CN3 in the ERO.  If
    the LSP is bidirectional, CN3 MUST also cross-connect the upstream
    label U2 in the ERO with the upstream label U1 it received from CN2.

    If either of these cross-connections fails, the egress core-node
    SHOULD send a PathErr with <error code>."

==============

> As discussed in the CCAMP meeting today,
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-03.txt has been
> updated with a few minor changes and is now ready for working group last
> call.
>
> Several vendors have indicated that they support this function.
>
> This email begins a working group last call on
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-03.txt
> The last call will end on Friday 26th March at 12 noon GMT.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-03.txt
>
> Comments to the list or to the chairs direct.
> Thanks,
> Adrian





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:38 AM
Subject: Last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-03.txt


> As discussed in the CCAMP meeting today, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-03.txt has been
> updated with a few minor changes and is now ready for working group last call.
>
> Several vendors have indicated that they support this function.
>
> This email begins a working group last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-03.txt
> The last call will end on Friday 26th March at 12 noon GMT.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-03.txt
>
> Comments to the list or to the chairs direct.
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
>