Subject: Promoting 3946bis to WG status

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:08:51 -0000

Hi,

We discussed this I-D in Vancouver.

It is clear that we need to update the RFC for minor changes.

Editors:
- please submit draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt
  as draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc3946bis-00.txt
- please make no changes (except date and document name)
- in particular, please leave the notes in place.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Faisal Aslam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:17:24 +0200

Hi,

I want to know that if a border router is working in "Mid-point explicit 
notification mode" and a link or node has to go down due to maintenance 
reasons. Then why not the mid-point can reoptimize the (sub portion of) 
path  locally "without" notifying to the ingress node?
The draft says in above case ingress MUST decided to reoptimize (no 
other choice) then why to wait for ingress decision in the first place 
and not to perform reoptimization locally?
I think that the local node can remember the next-loose-hop node with 
which the path was originally signaled and later, in the event of local 
maintenance it should reoptimized without involving ingress (hence save 
signaling/time).

Faisal