RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft

Hi Sanjay,

I know. My mistake, it was a user error where an internal company email
by mistake got send to the ietf list.

sorry for the mistake,
peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjay Wadhwa [mailto:swadhwa@juniper.net] 
> Sent: 23. maj 2006 07:25
> To: parberg@redback.com; Jakob Heitz; l2cp@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft
> 
> Peter
>   Most of this doesn't belong to the list. Let us limit the discussion
> here to technical issues if any with the current version of the draft.
> 
> Thanks
> -Sanjay
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Peter Arberg [mailto:parberg@redback.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:08 AM
> >To: 'Jakob Heitz'; l2cp@ietf.org
> >Subject: RE: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft
> >
> >
> >So at the moment there is no need to even read the new draft.
> >
> >Most of these changes is done because I have requested them
> >based on other customer discussions, non DT, and to make ANCP
> >more compliant to TR-101 from information it includes.
> >
> >But unfortunately the update is not made consistent, so there
> >is even number disagreement inside the draft.
> >
> >So for now, forget it is there, and stay at the .0 draft.
> >
> >This .01 version is actually a lot closer to the PDD, but since
> >mainly the DSLAM vendors kept arguing against the draft, and 
> >Wadhwa was to slow to get it out, it will not make the DT trail
> >which was the idea back in January.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jakob Heitz [mailto:jheitz@redback.com] 
> >> Sent: 22. maj 2006 15:20
> >> To: l2cp@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [L2CP] TLV number clash in new wadhwa draft
> >> 
> >> Also, Access-Aggregation-Circuit-ID-ASCII
> >> for VLAN is specified thus:
> >> Access-Node-Identifier eth slot/port 
> [:inner-vlan-id][:outer-vlan-id]
> >> 
> >> Could we swap the outer and inner, like this ?
> >> Access-Node-Identifier eth slot/port 
> [:outer-vlan-id][:inner-vlan-id]
> >> 
> >> Jakob Heitz wrote:
> >> > For PORT UP TLVs, new addition,
> >> >        2. Type (Access-Loop-Remote-Id = 0x02)
> >> > required a renumbering of
> >> >        3. Type (Access-Aggregation-Circuit-ID-Binary = 0x04)
> >> > from 0x02 to 0x04.
> >> > However,
> >> >        5. Type (DSL Line Attributes = 0x04):
> >> > is 0x04. A clash!
> >> > Because this one contains its own TLVs, is it even needed?
> >> > The encapsulated TLVs have no numbering clashes.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > The new version is incompatible with the old due to
> >> > the renumbered items. Therefore could we please
> >> > bump the version, say to 0x32.
> >> > 
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > L2cp mailing list
> >> > L2cp@ietf.org
> >> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Jakob Heitz. x5475. 510-566-2901
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> L2cp mailing list
> >> L2cp@ietf.org
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >L2cp mailing list
> >L2cp@ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp
> >
> 

_______________________________________________
L2cp mailing list
L2cp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp