From: Diego Caviglia
[mailto:Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005
11:42 AM
To: richard.rabbat@us.fujitsu.com
Cc: ""'ccamp'"
<ccamp"; ""'Kohei Shiomoto'" <shiomoto.kohei";
""'Rajiv Papneja'" <rpapneja"
Subject: RE: Addressing doc
Richiard,
IMHO also
a section (or sub-section) dedicated to LMP usage could be very useful in order
to clarify how LMP can help in addressing resolution.
BR
D
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.