Subject: FW: [mpls] Use of reserved bits in Session object

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:26:15 -0400

Hi Folks,

Just wanted to raise this issue in case some people might not be
also on the MPLS list.  This is a check to see if the use of the
Session Object subfield for short call id causes anyone problems.

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:03 AM
To: Adrian Farrel; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [mpls] Use of reserved bits in Session object

Hi Folks,

Just to further bring this to people's attention - RFC 3209 says that
the bits in this subfield of the Session object "MUST be zero", rather
than simply saying that the subfield is "Reserved".

Not being familiar with how this text originated, I'd like to understand
if this was done for a specific reason (e.g., to maintain some kind of
compatibility with RFC 2205) or whether it was stated that way ("MUST be
zero" vs. "Reserved") with nothing further implied.

Thanks,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:57 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mpls] Use of reserved bits in Session object

Hi,

Just a heads up that draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-00.txt makes
use of the reserved bits in the Session object in order to convey a Call
ID.

We believe that this does not cause a backward compatiblity problem
since the bits were formerly reserved.

Note that RFC3209 says that these bits MUST be set to zero on
transmission.

Any questions or opinions would be welcomed.

Adrian and Dimitri 

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls