Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
To: "'ccamp'" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
cc: "'Kohei Shiomoto'" <shiomoto.kohei@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "'Richard Rabbat'" <richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com>, "'Rajiv Papneja'" <rpapneja@isocore.com>
Subject: RE: Addressing doc
Hi all,
The editors have been having various discussions with people about some oftheir issues with this draft. In order to clarify a some points here are some of thechanges that we plan tomake to the next version of the draft. We hope thiswill 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 thedestination 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 thesender data plane address or the TE Router ID.
New text:
Alternatively, the tunnel sender address MAY also be set to thesender 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 ininteroperability testing or in deployment have applied this relationship. Whennew implementations that include any other relationship between controlplane and data plane entities are encountered, this document would beenhanced as necessary.