Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] WG LC draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt

Greg,

Sorry, but I do not remember the point you mention.
Can you explain again here ?
Thanks.
Luca

On 02/17/11 23:47, Greg Mirsky wrote:
> Dear Authors and All,
> prior to the meeting in Bejing and acceptance of this proposal as WG
> document Luca and I agreed that use of GAL with PW VCCV presents a
> problem.
> I was not attending the IETF-79, nor I found discussion of this issue
> in the minutes. I think that this issue should be specified,
> explained. In my view, this document updates not only RFC 5586
> but RFC 5085 too.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> Comment to draft-lm-pwe3-mpls-tp-gal-in-pw-00.txt
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Luca Martini <lmartini@cisco.com
> <mailto:lmartini@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>     Greg,
>
>     You are correct , the proposed update does not propose any changes
>     to VCCV.
>     However the problem with vccv is not as simple as to ask for a new
>     code point from IANA.
>     Given the good amount of discussion on this point, we should
>     probably have a discussion in Beijing.
>
>     Luca
>
>
>
>     On 10/29/2010 05:07 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
>>     Dear Authors,
>>     I think that proposed update of the Section 4.2. RFC 5586 makes it possible
>>     to use GAL on MPLS-TP PW that uses Control Word. I consider it to be
>>     conflict between PW VCCV CC types because use of GAL is not negotiated
>>     through PW VCCV negotiation. To avoid such situation I propose:
>>
>>        - in Section 5 request IANA to assign new CC Type "MPLS Generic
>>        Associated Channel Label"
>>        - assign precedence to new CC Type that affects Section 7 RFC 5085
>>
>>     Regards,
>>     Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     mpls mailing list
>>     mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls