Re: [PWE3] WG Poll on draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-03.txt ( comment )

Matthew & Andy,

Although I support clarifying this procedure , I believe this document
needs some work.
In section 3 for example :

   When Local PE changes its control word from NOT PREFERRED to
   PREFERRED and only if it already received the remote label mapping
   message with C-bit=0, additional procedure will be added as follow:

         -i. Local PE sends label withdraw message to the remote if it
             already sends label mapping message, for it has changed its
             control word parameter.

        -ii. Local PE MUST send a label request messages to peer PE to
             get peer's configured control word parameter before sending
             new label mapping message to peer PE.

       -iii. After receiving the new label mapping message from peer PE
             and updating the remote label binding information, the
             Local PE should send label mapping to peer PE according to
             procedures defined in [RFC4447].

What does the item i) mean ? the English is not clear.
Why does the PE have to do ii) ?

All we really need is a statement on how the c-bit negotiation state
machine can be reset if one end has changed "his mind" .

Can we fix this document before  issuing the -00 WG draft version ?

Thanks.
Luca

On 02/16/11 05:46, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote:
> WG,
>
> The authors of draft-jin-pwe3-cbit-negotiation-03 have asked that the
> WG adopt this as a PWE3 working group draft.
>
> This email begins a two week poll to help us judge if there is
> consensus to move forward with the draft.
>
> Please post any comments to the PWE3 list by Wednesday 2nd March.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matthew & Andy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3