Re: [CCAMP] poll on making draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document

Hi authors,

One quick comment here.

In section 3.3 recovery considerations, it says
" LSP3... can share the same TE tunnel with LSP1 or not. ... This can be done by inserting the Extended ASSOCIATION object in LSP3's Path message with the same value as in LSP1's Path message."

This means LSP3 may use LSP1's IDs in the Extended ASSOCIATION object in its Path message, which may contain Tunnel_Num and LSP_ID different from its own and LSP2's.

However, in section 4, the specification of Association ID and Extended Association ID field says:
 o Association ID:
   The Association ID MUST be set to its own signaled LSP ID (default); if known, it MAY be set to the LSP ID of the associated reverse LSP.
 o Extended Association ID:
   ... the first 16-bits MUST be set to its own tunnel ID (default); if known, it May be set to the tunnel ID of the associated reverse tunnel.

Hence the two specifications conflict with each other.

Regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 5:24 PM
> To: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: [CCAMP] poll on making
> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document
> 
> All,
> 
> This is to start a two week poll on making
> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a ccamp working
> group document. Please send mail to the list indicating "yes/support"
> or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your technical
> reservations with the document.
> 
> The poll ends Friday April 15.
> 
> Much thanks,
> Lou (and Deborah)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp