The MPLS WG Archive

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

        

Hi,

> > > * The mplsLabelStackTable should be
> made optional for LDP LSPs
> > >   which use ATM or FR.  Could this be added
> in
> > >   the conformance section?
> > 
> > It already supports non-stackable environments.
>
> That is not really the issue, the issue is why does
> LDP using ATM or FR need to support this table?
>
> It is some amount of overhead and no help whatsoever
> for this case.  Also, the concept of having to support
> a LabelStack in these cases is misleading.  This
> should be made optional.

        

Are you
then advocating making it optional
in the conformance statement?

        

With
regard to some of your other questions
where you requested that additional text be added to
descriptions, could you please provide the text that
you feel would make the object clearer or better
defined so that we can just look over your
text and decide whether or not it can go in, or
perhaps just tweak the text a bit and then add it?
Otherwise we will change the text, re-publish the
document, and then have to field additional comments.

        

I don't
like being pedantic, but I am just 
trying to get explicit opinions here so that we 
can reach a quick and specific consensus on these
last remaining issues. I hope that you 
understand. 8)

        

--Tom