Subject: Re: -04 version

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:47:53 -0800

Nabil,

> In addition to the changes mentioned below, there is one more 
> fundamental issue with the Unnumbered Interfaces draft. 
> 
> >From previous discussion on this list, it appears that the 
> Interface ID field of the unnumbered ERO subobject is intended
> to represent the incoming interface of the next hop router.
> If this is the case, it should be explicitly stated at
> the beginning of section 6.

> If the intention is to leave it open such that it is either
> incoming or outgoing interface then a bit from the reserved
> field of  the sub-object should indicate which of the two 
> choices is being used.

The intention is to allow either incoming or outgoing. Please show me 
an example where you think there is a need need for the bit to indicate 
"which of the two choices is being used".

Yakov.

> 
> In the absence of one of the above two alternatives, we would
> appear to have a case of ambiguity by design - not usually 
> preferred when you are standardizing something.
> 
> Best,
> Nabil Seddigh
> 
> 
> Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> > 
> > Nabil,
> > 
> > > Yakov,
> > >
> > > I suggest adding a section with title error handling - between
> > > section 6.2 and section 7. Having its own section is good as one
> > > would typically expect a note on error handling in this kind of
> > > a draft.  The section could indicate something  like:
> > >
> > >  Section 7.0
> > >  -----------
> > >  "In order to indicate the interfaces on which a particular error
> > >   occured, a new IF_ID ERROR_SPEC object is defined. The definitions
> > >   can be found in draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt and
> > >   draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt"
> > >
> > > Also section 6.1 indicates that the LSR should return error.
> > > However, it does not specify whether the PathErr message
> > > will contain an existing error code or a new one to
> > > be defined by IANA. Could you clarify.
> > 
> > -05 version of the draft (just announced) addresses this.
> > 
> > Yakov.
> > 
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Best,
> > > Nabil Seddigh
> > > [email-masked]
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 2. Also, if the unnum draft is not going to talk about error spec
> > > > >   it should reference the draft that defines the new
> > > > >   error_spec object for unnumbered links -
> > > > >   draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt
> > > >
> > > > please tell me where would you like to insert the reference,
> > > > and I'll add it.
> > > >
> > > > Yakov.
> > > >