Re: Responding to the OIF

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

Hi Evelyne,

> 1. From the examples below, STS3c and VC4 have different
>  RCC/NCC values. Clarifications on which values should be
> used for SONET/SDH interworking would be useful.

I have a couple of folks looking at this for me because I can't tell the
difference between a timeslice and a cakeslice.

Hopefully they will generate a response soon.

> 5. Is a change in the presence/absence of ResvConf considered a
> trigger message?

Yes, it would be a trigger message (that is, it would not be treated as a
simple refresh). But a "trigger message" does not necessarily cause any
action.

> My interpretation of the text below is that a refresh resv
> message containing a RESV_CONF object would not
> result in the generation of a RESV_CONF message,
> RESV_CONF messages only being sent on trigger
> resv message. Is that correct?

Seems reasonable to me.
That way the ResvConf confirms the receipt of the changed Resv.

I guess I should have added a note that a ResvConf message is not
necessarily reliably delivered. Relying on the receipt of a ResvConf
message before doing something (e.g. turning on the laser) might be a poor
idea. GMPLS uses the Administrative Status object and in particular the
R-bit in order to reliably achieve this function.

Adrian