Re: Chair review of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-dcsc-channel-ext-00.txt

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

And finally...



> > Section 3.2
> >
> > Subchannel: Variable
> >
> > See [RFC3471] for a description of this field. Note that this
> > field may not be 32 bit aligned.
> >
> > I think it is worth highlighting the context for the meaning and the
> > length of the subchannel ID
> can you be more specific? I don't understand what you are asking for.

Yeah, OK, I didn't go and read the reference. Sorry.

> > Section 3.3
> >
> > Don't you think it is a layer of complexity too far to have a Label Set
> > made up of a set of Channel_Set Labels each made up of a series of
> > Channel_Set subobjects each made up of a set of channels?
>
> yes, this is a tad excessive.  I'm not sure why anyone would construct 
> such an object though...

Let's get rid of options.
It makes the code easier to write. Just because you don't create the object, 
doesn't mean you don't have to parse it.

See below...

> > What on earth is the meaning of the Label Set if the action is set to
> > "inclusive range" or "exclusive range" and the label entries are
> > Channel_Set labels? What if the Label Set says "inclusive list" and one
> > of the Channel_Set subobjects says "exclusive list", or the other way
> > around.
>
> nothing that can't be represented with some nice logical expressions.

This problem goes away if you make the restriction I suggest below...

> > Perhaps you can set some limits on the action field in the Label Set etc?
>
> Do you have a suggestions?

Label_Set and Acceptable_Label_Set objects SHOULD NOT contain more than one 
Channel_Set Label, and when they contain a Channel_Set Label MUST have the 
Action field set to 0 (Inclusive List).


Many thanks for the work.
Cheers,
Adrian