[mpls] New version of Bundling Draft

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Adrian,

> Thank you for the new version of this draft. I assume that the
> changes are to address the issues raised at the MPLS WG meeting in
> Washington.
> 
> Since the draft was already through WG and IETF last call, I wonder
> if you would be kind enough to summarize the issues you were
> addressing and what changes you made to the draft.

Here is the summary:

draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-05.txt has been updated to reflect the comments made
in the MPLS WG and on the list.  The issues raised are:

1. Scope of component identifiers is open to interpretation (i.e., node vs
link)
2. No way to specify different upstream and downstream components then
using TLV types 1, 2 and 3
3. Ambiguity of contents of the IP address field in TLV types 3, 4, 5
4. Lack of IPv6 support for types 3, 4, and 5.
5. Ambiguity of when to use types 4 and 5 and when to use type 3.
6. No coverage of ERO and RRO implications

These issues have been addressed in the following ways:

Issue 1:  The -05 document states that all component link TLV types
          have Node/IP scope
Issue 2: -05 Tightly defines support for different components in each
          direction (for bidirectional LSPs, and for all TLV types)
Issue 3: Format of the Value field for types 3, 4 and 5 now has the
          identical format as the contents of the C-Type 1
          LSP_TUNNEL_INTERFACE_ID object defined in [RFC3477].
Issue 4: Based on the previous change, support of IPv6 unnumbered
          components is now tied to, and the same as, the support of 
          IPv6 unnumber TE links.
Issue 5: -05 allows, but recommend against use of types 4 and 5
Issue 6: EROs, RROs remain out of scope of bundling document

Current planned changes are:
- Fix nits found by Adrian and Loa
- Insert a Table of Contents
- Section numbering will remain unchanged so as not to break any
potentially existing references to the draft

Yakov.