Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-10.txt

Dan Li <danli@huawei.com> Tue, 11 January 2011 08:51 UTC

Return-Path: <danli@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF503A6A1A for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:51:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.605, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 oxwKqmyx6Ifj for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 653473A63EB for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:51:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU00LISOOK5P@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:53:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LEU008I9OOKI1@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:53:08 +0800 (CST)
Received: from l00037133 ([10.70.77.125]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LEU0081IOOK2Q@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:53:08 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:53:08 +0800
From: Dan Li <danli@huawei.com>
To: Tomonori TAKEDA <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Message-id: <022d01cbb16c$f7d86750$7d4d460a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <201012311503.oBVF3oAA008419@imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels.all@tools.ietf.org, rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-10.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 08:51:08 -0000

Hi all,

We have updated this draft according to the comments received during the RtgDir review process. The major change is the description of Identifier in section 3.2 and 3.3. Others are minor editorial changes.

The latest version (11) of this draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-11.txt

Thanks,

Dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tomonori TAKEDA" <takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: <danli@huawei.com>
Cc: <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>; <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels.all@tools.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-10.txt


> Hi Dan,
> 
> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> The proposed text is good for me.
> 
> Tomonori
> 
>> Hi Tomonori,
>> 
>> Thanks for your comments! I would like to update the description of Identifier in section 3.2 and 3.3.
>> 
>> OLD
>>    (3) Identifier: 9 bits
>> 
>>    The identifier field is a per-node assigned and scoped value. This
>>    field MAY change on a per-hop basis. In all cases but one, a node MAY
>>    select any value, including zero (0), for this field. Once selected,
>>    the value MUST NOT change until the LSP is torn down and the value
>>    MUST be used in all LSP related messages, e.g., in Resv messages and
>>    label RRO subobjects. The sole special case occurs when this label
>>    format is used in a label ERO subobject. In this case, the special
>>    value of zero (0) means that the referenced node MAY assign any
>>    Identifier field value, including zero (0), when establishing the
>>    corresponding LSP.
>> NEW
>>    (3) Identifier: 9 bits
>> 
>>    The identifier field in lambda label format is used to distinguish different 
>>    lasers (in one node) when they can transmit the same frequency lambda.
>>    The identifier field is a per-node assigned and scoped value. This
>>    field MAY change on a per-hop basis. In all cases but one, a node MAY
>>    select any value, including zero (0), for this field. Once selected,
>>    the value MUST NOT change until the LSP is torn down and the value
>>    MUST be used in all LSP related messages, e.g., in Resv messages and
>>    label RRO subobjects. The sole special case occurs when this label
>>    format is used in a label ERO subobject. In this case, the special
>>    value of zero (0) means that the referenced node MAY assign any
>>    Identifier field value, including zero (0), when establishing the
>>    corresponding LSP. When non-zero value is assigned to the identifier 
>>    field in a label ERO subobject, the referenced node MUST use the 
>>    assigned value for the identifier field in the corresponding LSP related 
>>    messages.
>> 
>> Is this ok?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>