Re: [CCAMP] Comment on draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-08: priority

["Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti)" <[e-mail]>]

Here my latest mail  with comments on wavelength priority... 

Just to highlight  background (please correct if wrong)
- last short thread was during ieft83, last mail was from me and did not get answers. The content here below cover that mail as well.
- discussions about wl priority happens among authors not on ccamp mailing list. On the mailing list you announce such update around dec 2011.  

Well, I'm not complaining about how discussion happen, simply I saw  a not-trivial addition to wg document, hence my comments.

Cheers
G



On Jul 31, 2012, at 24:34 , Giovanni Martinelli (giomarti) wrote:

> Dear authors / ccamp,
> 
> here a few comments related to the priority field added to draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode:
> 
> A couple of editorial comments
> 1)  "wavelenght priority" appears in a draft that claim to be general. In fact is available in "Available Labels Sub-TLV" and "Shared Backup Labels Sub-TLV". So is a wavelength or label-like priority?
> 2)  why an 8 bits (bit field) instead of the classic 3 bits (integer [0 .. 7]?
> 
> 
> Then few other comments
> 3)  How the priority is used versus the A flag . Draft text report
> "  
>   A (Availability bit) = 1 or 0 indicates that the labels listed in
>   the following label set field are available or not available,
>   respectively, for use at a given priority level as indicated by the
>   Priority Flags.
> 
> "
> So does it means that there could be different "available labels sub-TLVs" advertised? 
> 
> 4) Still unclear to me how this priority is different from the one reported in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kattan-wson-property-01 and eventually if this "priority" could fit the LSP priority already available (as one of the comment we received at that time)
> 
> Cheers
> G
>