RE: Addressing doc

["Richard Rabbat" <richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com>]

Dimitri,

Yes, this will sync up the language.

As for "complex", the Merriam-Webster dictionary says:
Complex: 
1: a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts 

In this draft, interrelated parts. 

The complex case may still be simple :)

Richard.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be 
> [mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:54 PM
> To: Richard Rabbat
> Cc: 'ccamp'; 'Kohei Shiomoto'; 'Richard Rabbat'; 'Rajiv Papneja'
> Subject: RE: Addressing doc
> 
> 
> 
> richard, would it be possible to adapt the following sentence 
> as well ?
> 
> "  A Path message is sent to the next hop node.  It is 
> RECOMMENDED that
>    the TE router ID of the next hop node be used as an IP destination
>    address in the packet that carries the RSVP-TE message. "
> 
> as
> 
> "  A Path message is sent to the next hop node.  It is 
> RECOMMENDED that
>    a stable IP address of the next hop node be used as the IP 
> destination
>    address of the packet that carries the RSVP-TE message. 
> This address
>    MAY be the TE router ID of the next hop node or a 
> reachable next-hop
>    (stable) IP address."
> 
> Resv message destination address should be adapted along the 
> same line, ...
> 
> by the way why scenarios that were not tested during this event are
> de-facto "more complex" ?
> 
> ---
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The editors have been having various discussions with people 
> about some of
> their issues with this draft. In order to clarify a some 
> points here are
> some of the changes that we plan to make to the next version 
> of the draft.
> We hope this will help to clarify the draft.
> 
> 1. In section 4.2.1, previous text:
>    Alternatively, the tunnel end point address MAY also be set to the
> destination data plane address if the ingress knows that 
> address or the TE
> Router ID.
> New text:
>    Alternatively, the tunnel end point address MAY also be set to the
> destination data plane address if the ingress knows that address.
> 
> 2. In section 4.2.2 previous text:
>    Alternatively, the tunnel sender address MAY also be set 
> to the sender
> data plane address or the TE Router ID.
> New text:
>    Alternatively, the tunnel sender address MAY also be set 
> to the sender
> data plane address.
> 
> 3. at the end of the introduction, we will add wording to the 
> last line to
> that effect:
> Various more complex deployment scenarios can be constructed 
> but these are
> currently out of scope as the only GMPLS implementations 
> encountered in
> interoperability testing or in deployment have applied this 
> relationship.
> When new implementations that include any other relationship between
> control plane and data plane entities are encountered, this 
> document would
> be enhanced as necessary.
> 
> 
>