Francois Le Faucheur <> Wed, 10 November 2010 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8473A635F for <>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:41:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.178
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WJIeUH-ujlw1 for <>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:41:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A143A679C for <>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:41:05 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-Files: image001.jpg, green.gif : 11041, 87
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.59,176,1288569600"; d="gif'147?jpg'147,145?scan'147,145,208,145,147,217"; a="180218603"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2010 02:41:19 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAA2fFP8029531; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 02:41:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Rev of MULTI_TSPEC ID
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-88--335454420"
From: Francois Le Faucheur <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 10:41:14 +0800
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: "James M. Polk" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: tsvwg <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 02:41:30 -0000

Hi James,

Because of the WG agenda shuffling, it looks like I missed your presentation on that. 
One point I wanted to discuss is how you plan addressing the comment that Toerless made at Maastricht IETF about supporting "ranges" of bandwidth (as opposed to list of bandwidths).

For memory, Dave Oran brought up the issue of Tspecs being multi-dimensional and therefore generally not directly comparable, but we want to find a way around this issue.

On 29 Oct 2010, at 08:26, James M. Polk wrote:

> We've revved the MULTI_TSPEC ID here
> We've added
> - a more complete Multicast section, and
> - a new error code to indicate whether or not a router that indicates it does not have sufficient BW to grant this request has tried each of the TSPECs within a MULTI_TSPEC RSVP message, or if it didn't, this would mean the router is on supporting this IntServ extension and a new reservation request can be attempted using a TSPEC asking for less BW. We think this is important to know when handling errors to RESVs.
> Comments are appreciated
> James
> (obviously, without my WG chair hat on)

Francois Le Faucheur
Distinguished Engineer
Corporate Development
Phone: +33 49 723 2619
Mobile: +33 6 19 98 50 90

Cisco Systems France
400 Ave de Roumanille
06410 Sophia Antipolis


 Think before you print.

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

Cisco Systems France, Société à responsabiité limitée, Rue Camille Desmoulins – Imm Atlantis Zac Forum Seine Ilot 7 92130 Issy les Moulineaux, Au capital de 91.470 €, 349 166 561 RCS Nanterre, Directeur de la publication: Jean-Luc Michel Givone.

For corporate legal information go to: