[mpls] Comment on draft-fbb-mpls-gach-adv

[Sriganesh Kini <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan and other authors,

Some comments
1. Is there an equivalent of 'Promiscous ARP' in GAP ?
2. The semantics of the 'Message Identifier' should be explained.
3. In sec 5.1, instead of "... Protocol message transmission SHALL
operate on a per-.." can we use "... Protocol instance SHOULD operate
on a per-...".
4. In sec 5.1, instead of per-data-channel it would be better to use
"per Interface (or section)".
5. If IP is used in G-ACh but IP is not used in the data plane, is GAP
still required ?

Thanks

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Working Group,
>
> this is to start a two week poll to see if there is support to make
>   draft-fbb-mpls-gach-adv-01
>   draft-fbb-mpls-tp-ethernet-addressing-01
> mpls working group drafts.
>
> Pleased send your comments to the mpls working group mailing list
> ([e-mail]).
>
> This poll ends January 18, 2012!
>
> Loa
> for the mpls wg chairs
>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
>                                             [phone]
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls



-- 
- Sri