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

[Tomonori TAKEDA <[e-mail]>]

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
>