Re: [PWE3] draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01

[Sami Boutros <[e-mail]>]

I personally like option 1 in this draft, describing how to re-enable 
control word via dynamic LDP signaling.

However, you would need to clarify the steps more..
saying in step 3 that PE2 MUST send a label request and in step 5 
that PE1 MUST respond to the label request with the configured CW 
setting on PE1 which was set, as well in step 6 PE2 MUST wait for PE1 
label binding before sending it's label binding with CW set.

As well, it may be good extending the flow chart described in 
appendix A in rfc 4447 with option 1.

Not sure, if it is worth mentioning the other options since they have issues.

Option 2, how will we be able to re-enable CW? isn't that the issue 
we are trying to fix?

Option 3, This is avoiding to solve the problem.

Option 4, I don't think this will fly.

Thanks,

Sami
At 01:53 AM 11/19/2010, Raymond Key wrote:
>Hi PWE3 working group,
>
>In the recent IETF79, we have presented the draft "Pseudowire 
>Control Word Negotiation Mechanism Analysis and Update"
><http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-01 
>
>
>This draft describes the problem of control word negotiation 
>mechanism specified in RFC4447. Based on the problem analysis, 
>possible solutions and their potential shortcomings are also discussed.
>
>The authors would like to have more feedback from the mailing list 
>before working on the next version. Grateful if you could review the 
>document and post comments on the mailing list.
>
>Thanks,
>Raymond Key
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3