[CCAMP] A couple of comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3-02

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Authors,

This message is a follow on to the discussion that we started to have in
Paris on the ADAPTATION Object.  I have two comments, the second of
which I didn't have time (during the presentation time period) to make:

1) Can you explain/justify why you are proposing carrying a subset of
the Payload type code points defined in G.709 (see Table 15-8) in the
ADAPTATION Object, but not others?

I'm not questioning the need for an end-to-end adaptation check, but
rather an apparent incomplete method for supporting this check.

2) Given the very limited number of remaining RSVP c-type values, I'm
struggling with justifying the definition of the new, perhaps not very
generic, ADAPTATION Object rather than carrying this information in an
existing (and more generic) object.  Have you considered carrying this
information elsewhere, e.g., LSP attributes, and if so what's your
thinking for not using such?

Lou (As WG participant)