The MPLS WG Archive

[Dimitry Haskin <dhaskin@nexabit.com>]

Dan,

Your corrected version of the text is fine.

Thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitry Haskin
Lucent Technologies Internetworking Systems


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Awduche [mailto:awduche@UU.NET]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 2:33 AM
> To: Dimitry Haskin
> Cc: mpls@UU.NET; Daniel Awduche
> Subject: Re: FW: I-D
> ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-tunnel-applicability-01.t xt
> 
> 
> Dimitry,
> 
> Thanks or the note. See additional comments inline...
> 
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 10:52:03AM -0400, Dimitry Haskin wrote:
> > Dan,
> > 
> > Let me suggest the following text:
> > 
> > "To be definite, in the original RSVP protocol [3], a session 
> > was defined as a data flow with a particular destination and 
> > transport layer protocol.  In the RSVP-TE specification, however,
> > session is defined as the set of label switched packets with
> > a particular destination, tunnel id, and extended tunnel id."
> 
> This is a good try, but it conveys an incorrect impression
> that the parameters of the RSVP-TE SESSION object (tunnel end 
> point address, tunnel id, and extended tunnel id) are in fact 
> attributes of the label switched packets. That is, it
> confuses the semantics of the RSVP-TE signaling messages that
> instantiate a session with the attributes of the packets 
> that comprise the session.
> 
> Nonetheless, you did have a valid point in your original
> email, in that you discerned that the wording of the 
> applicability draft did not express the fact that a session 
> may result in more than one LSP. With this mind, 
> here's a corrected version of the second sentence which 
> accommodates your input.
> 
> "In the RSVP-TE specification, however, a session is defined 
> as the set of label switched packets that are instantiated
> by RSVP-TE messages containing particular values of the
> SESSION object parameters (Tunnel-End-Point-Address, 
> Tunnel-Id, and Extended-Tunnel-Id)."
> 
> Let's converge on these rhetorical aspects and move on
> to other issues... 
> 
> George/Lou feel free to step in if a more concise description 
> is needed.
> 
> Cheers,
> /Dan
>