Re: [CCAMP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-03

Hi Dan.

Thanks for the update. Just 2 comments for me.

In section 3, the case of silently ignored BEHAVIOUR_CONFIG object (and 
the malformed message suggested by Lou) is not explicitly mentioned in 
the following text. If it is deferred to RFC 4204, a simple sentence 
would be helpful.

About, the B bit, I believe the "core procedures" from RFC 4204 
("control channel management" and "link property correlation") should 
not allow negotiation, so removing the B bit is fine. All the same, RFC 
4204 is not a single feature: would not it make sense to consider the 
"additional procedures", i.e. "link connectivity verification" and 
"fault management", in BEHAVIOUR_CONFIG? (e.g. V and F bits)

Regards,

Julien

Le 07/04/2011 11:08, Dan Li a écrit :
> Hi All,
>
> We have updated this draft according to the comments raised during IETF 80th meeting, just very minor changes:
> 1) Replaced "Reserved" with "MUST_BE_ZERO" to avoid any confusion;
> 2) Added the text to describe the current status of the RFCs updates for LMP security issue.
>
> Thanks Richard and Sasha for the valuable comments!
>
> BTW, as we have raised the question in the meeting, do we need the "B" bit? If there is no objection, then we will remove "B" bit from this draft in next revision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Authors of LMP-Behavior draft
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "IETF I-D Submission Tool"<idsubmission@ietf.org>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Dan Li and posted to the IETF repository.
>>
>> Filename: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-behavior-negotiation
>> Revision: 03
>> Title: Behavior Negotiation in The Link Management Protocol
>> Creation_date: 2011-04-07
>> WG ID: ccamp
>> Number_of_pages: 9
>>
>> Abstract:
>> The Link Management Protocol (LMP) is used to coordinate the
>> properties, use, and faults of data links in Generalized
>> Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. Various proposals
>> have been advanced to provide extensions to the base LMP
>> specification. This document defines an extension to negotiate
>> capabilities and support for those extensions, and provides a
>> generic procedure for LMP implementations that do not recognize or
>> do not support any one of these extensions.
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>