Subject: A mismatch between the procedure and the message format in LMP

From: 김영화 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:37:30 +0900

Hi, ccampers

I found a mismatch description between the procedure and the message format
in LMP.
The LMP document that I have read is draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-10.txt.
The procedure is of the link connectivity verification.
If you see the section 5.1, "Example of Link Connectivity Verification",
the section is now describing as follows:

****************************************************************************
************
	In the section, 5.1,

     o  A sends a BeginVerify message over the control channel to B
        indicating it will begin verifying the ports that form the TE
        link.  The LOCAL_LINK_ID object carried in the BeginVerify
        message carries the identifier (IP address or interface index)
        that A assigns to the link.
     o  Upon receipt of the BeginVerify message, B creates a Verify_Id
        and binds it to the TE Link from A. This binding is used later
        when B receives the Test messages from A, and these messages
        carry the Verify_Id. B discovers the identifier (IP address or
        interface index) that A assigns to the TE link by examining the
        LOCAL_LINK_ID object carried in the received BeginVerify
        message. (If the data ports are not yet assigned to the TE
        Link, the binding is limited to the Node_Id of A.) In response
        to the BeginVerify message, B sends to A the BeginVerifyAck
        message. The LOCAL_LINK_ID object carried in the BeginVerifyAck
        message is used to carry the identifier (IP address or
        interface index) that B assigns to the TE link. The
        REMOTE_LINK_ID object carried in the BeginVerifyAck message is
        used to bind the Link_Ids assigned by both A and B. The
        Verify_Id is returned to A in the BeginVerifyAck message over
        the control channel.

	In the section, 12.5.1,

   <BeginVerify Message> ::= <Common Header> <LOCAL_LINK_ID>
                             <MESSAGE_ID> [<REMOTE_LINK_ID>]
                             <BEGIN_VERIFY>

   The above transmission order SHOULD be followed.

   To limit the scope of Link Verification to a particular TE Link, the
   Link_Id field of the LOCAL_LINK_ID object MUST be non-zero. If this
   field is zero, the data links can span multiple TE links and/or they
   may comprise a TE link that is yet to be configured. In the special
   case where the local Link_Id field is zero, the "Verify all Links"
   flag of the BEGIN_VERIFY object is used to distinguish between data
   links that span multiple TE links and those that have not yet been
   assigned to a TE link (see Section 5).

   The REMOTE_LINK_ID object may be included if the local/remote
   Link_Id mapping is known.

   The Link_Id field of the REMOTE_LINK_ID object MUST be non-zero if
   included.

	In the section, 12.5.2,

   <BeginVerifyAck Message> ::= <Common Header> [<LOCAL_LINK_ID>]
                                <MESSAGE_ID_ACK> <BEGIN_VERIFY_ACK>
                                <VERIFY_ID>

   The above transmission order SHOULD be followed.

   The LOCAL_LINK_ID object may be included if the local/remote Link_Id
   mapping is known or learned through the BeginVerify message.
****************************************************************************
************

There is a discrepancy about the remote Link_id between the text and the
format.
In the text, the remote Link_id has been included in the BeginVerifyAck
message.
But, in the format, the remote Link_id has been included in the BeginVerify
message, not in BeginVerifyAck message.
I think that the text is correct, and the format is not correct.
I'm not sure that I would be reading an old document of LMP.

What do you think of this?

Thanks,

Young.