Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-01.txt

[Arthi Ayyangar <arthi@juniper.net>]

Hi Adrian,

Sorry for the delay (as usual) and thanks for your comments (as usual).
I have incorporated your comments and suggestions for the next rev. Just 
one major point of contention. See below.

> Section 4.1 (also section 9.1)
>   0x01 (TBD): Contiguous LSP bit - this flag is set by the head-end
>   node that originates the inter-domain TE LSP if it desires a
>   contiguous end-to-end TE LSP (in the control & data plane). When set,
>   this indicates that a boundary node MUST not perform any stitching or
>   nesting on the TE LSP and the TE LSP MUST be routed as any other TE
>   LSP (it must be contiguous end to end). When this bit is cleared, a
>   boundary node may decide to perform stitching or nesting. A mid-point
>   node not supporting contiguous TE LSP MUST send a Path Error message
>
> a. s/MUST not/MUST NOT/
> b. I have allocated bit number 4 (0x08) in the temporary registry of
> LSP_ATTRIBUTE bits available at http://www.olddog.co.uk/lsp-attrib.txt as
> a place holder until the IANA takes over this work. (I think we've
> discussed this before -  the point of the temporary registry is to save
---------> This has been 0x01 for Contiguous LSP desired and 0x02 for 
Stitching desired since the beginning of any of these drafts, through the 
merger and split. And I remember that the LSP Attributes registry used to 
carry the matching numbers before. But looks like other drafts have 
appeared and now the numbers for the inter-domain IDs in the registry no 
longer match the ones in the IDs.

Just one point that these inter-domain IDs predate most of the other IDs 
actually (in fact we went the LSP ATTRIBUTES path because we ran out of 
bits for the inter-domain IDs), so I am not sure what you propose we do 
at this point.

thanks,
-arthi