IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-02.txt

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Wed, 24 March 2010 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954E53A6BB4; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1n5PohlMrzCu; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4FB3A6D3E; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEABfnqUtAZnwM/2dsb2JhbACbG3OnC4FCCgGXOIR+BA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,301,1267401600"; d="scan'208";a="95841184"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2010 17:22:04 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2OHM3Fe005187; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:22:03 GMT
Received: from dhcp-wireless-open-abg-25-131.meeting.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id o2OHM1X00396; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:22:01 GMT
Message-ID: <4BAA4A38.5030107@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:22:00 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hhelvoort@chello.nl
References: <20100305191502.17B8F28C0F0@core3.amsl.com> <4B9290D1.2080902@pi.nu> <787be2781003061226t58ad6659x52a097d3b828d0c2@mail.gmail.com> <4BA5783A.9070307@cisco.com> <4BA657EB.9060709@chello.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4BA657EB.9060709@chello.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, pwe3@ietf.org, "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:23:43 -0000

Huub van Helvoort wrote:
> Ho Stewart,
>
> You suggested:
>
>> We could allocate a small number - say 4 or 8 for experimental purposes.
>>
>> What do others think?
>
> I agree, and for consistency use the same number (and numbers)
> as allocated for experimental Channel types in RFC5586.
>
> Regards, Huub.
I see no reason why they need to be the particular numbers used for ACH types, and if you look at the mail that I posted earlier today, you will see that there is an alternative method of doing padding that would conflict with that alignment.

- Stewart

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status