[mpls] Fwd: Question on use of MPLS vs MPLS-TP in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-01
Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Mon, 16 August 2010 20:27 UTC
Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA763A6A9E; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.286
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.312, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x5EGAupFFgyh; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A503A6A90; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws10 with SMTP id 10so4160571vws.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=cC8H4lY4zfPp3rmtzhdD6sLSu+Tu0+Uc0MXv10fbkjM=; b=Ytz9topfFr7/6Eg9a9L3an9EKgMZXPhlY/Psx5MtA9jJ9r8nG7N3qnTPddxhFrjGnd XoZ2Zc6m8xG3MbpXhVIt4SV8JkgybEgpVeRd1tFJeqmGudm9cUxaZ4A2rS81w/dsBuYy EfCTlftXRR6CKfjdFHaKSD0Tpu7OK70AHurG0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=nVIuhV36Ec/JxwscAaJfsobVQwZSvdSP6WFMeUplqfihNaFQzJ9GEfOm3JDeGmwNT2 mb0tO5igVyunZKkW4q4o46cG5mihaMzXNTuHfGPXDogU2GyGsYb5KJqKfi3E2jLn8BTf y2d5Re3ypeZkEXnRkesfeiCHH6AdagKMffCl4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.169.14 with SMTP id w14mr3359327vcy.17.1281990512603; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.73.211 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinH7zu5i67h9bRzQ3Px+m9AD9i6wU=UtbXSaYFh@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinH7zu5i67h9bRzQ3Px+m9AD9i6wU=UtbXSaYFh@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:28:32 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimLx7RemGrHu=n7i_PWc60XvEuJyNNH2gpH+bey@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e646a4561bf272048df6addf"
Subject: [mpls] Fwd: Question on use of MPLS vs MPLS-TP in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-01
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:27:58 -0000
Apologies for duplicates as I forgot to copy to the lists Dear Authors, Editors and All, I've noticed that sections 3.2 and 33. refer to MPLS CC and CV formats whereas scope of the document is set to MPLS-TP networks only. Are these references editorial omissions or intention is to define CC/CV/RDI formats that are applicable to MPLS networks as superset of MPLS-TP without detailed specification of behavior of Proactive CC/CV outside of MPLS-TP? Regards, Greg