Re: Last Call: Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLSvto Proposed Standard

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Yangguang,

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Yangguang Xu wrote:

> I am trying to understand what you mean about a general document.

Remember the generalized signaling documents -- a func spec, an RSVP
doc and a CR-LDP doc?  And a separate doc for SDH?  We were well-advised
by Bert that this
(a) is more in line with the COMMON part of ccamp;
(b) makes progress of the documents easier; and
(c) provides a template for future extensions.

So, the authors took out almost all the SDH related work from the
the common doc, and put it into a separate doc.  The only SDH stuff
remaining in the common doc are code points that were further developed
in the SDH doc.

The routing docs followed exactly the same paradigm.  Thus I would
prefer to see code points for SDH, but little else in the common
routing specs.

> Does a general
> document cover only "lowest common denominator" or define a flexible mechanism
> that could accommodate various situations? I think it should be the latter.

The latter.

> Then, layering and flexible layer adaptation are pretty common, I think this
> draft should define a general mechanism to deal with it. (and sure, xxx
> technology specific values can be defined in other xxx specific draft)

I've just asked Stephen Shew for text in this regard.

Kireeti.