Re: [mpls] [Tsvwg] WG last callfor draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-user-error-spec-03

Hi,

Sounds very good to me. 

Sorry that I missed that "MAY" for the suboptions. :)

Cheers,
Jukka

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Hi Jukka,
> 
> > I have read the draft, and think it is a reasonable proposal, and
> > presented well. I have just a few minor comments/clarification requests:
> >
> > - What is exactly meant by "it is RECOMMENDED that organizations use a
> >  published scheme for this string to promote consistent decoding."? Could
> >  you add an example, perhaps?
> 
> Ah. Probably over-enthusiastic text created when we added the Error
> Description string before this became a WG I-D.
> 
> What we meant was that it might be helpful to a device that is going to a user
> that is going to read this string if they knew that a string coming from a
> device made by vendor X should be interpreted in a particular way. For
> example, date stamp, IP address, error string.
> 
> However, looking at this again, I would be happy to strike this text.
> 
> > - Is it possible to not include the Error Description? If so, this could
> >  be said explicitly.
> 
> Yes, the length can be set to zero, in which case there are no bytes of
> description string.
> 
> I can clarify this.
> 
> > - Is it possible to not include User-defined subobjects? If so, this could
> >  be said explicitly.
> 
> We already have:
>        User-defined subobjects MAY be included.
> 
> I think that is sufficiently explicit that it is possible to not include them.
> 
> > These latter two comments are about making the user error propagation a
> > bit simpler, e.g., one could primarily use the extended number space to
> > define new error values, but leave in some cases the description and
> > subobjects out to save bytes.
> 
> Agreed, and that is our intention.
> 
> Does that work for you?
> 
> Adrian 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls