The MPLS WG Archive

[Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>]

Adrian,
         My understanding of the BNF for Path based on the generalized 
draft is:


       <Path Message> ::=       <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
                                <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
                                <TIME_VALUES>
                               [ <EXPLICIT_ROUTE> ]
                                <LABEL_REQUEST>
                                [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
                                [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
                                <sender descriptor>

<sender descriptor> ::= <SENDER_TEMPLATE> <SENDER_TSPEC>
                     [<ADSPEC>] [<RECORD_ROUTE>]
                                [ <SUGGESTED_LABEL> ]
                               [ <UPSTREAM_LABEL> ]

It was in the draft and was removed due to lack of parity between the 
protocols.  Obviously it needs to be in the eventual RSVP related spec.

Lou

At 04:26 PM 9/18/00, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>Hi Eric,
>
>Thanks for this draft, it pulls things together nicely and shows how simply
>UNI can be performed with existing protocols.
>
>I have just a couple of questions.
>
>Is the Propagation Delay object wholly new?  Have you any plans for what it
>looks like?
>
>In sections 3.4 and 5.4 (which need renumbering :-)  you use a Notify to
>expedite the acknowledgement of a Tear if there is no suitable message on
>which to piggy-back the Ack.  Why did you choose this rather than an Ack
>message?  The Ack message exists for exactly this purpose, while the Notify
>requires an Error_Spec.
>
>I believe you may have cut and pasted a typo from
>draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-06.txt.  George has fixed this in v7.
>TIME_VALUES should be mandatory on Path and Resv
>
>Lastly, I'm not sure that the format you have given for the Path is quite
>correct with regard to the GLR, LS and SL objects.  Since my version of
>GMPLS doesn't have anything specific to say on the subject I can only piece
>it together from the text...
>- I don't think you can have Generalized Label Request
>   and suggested label on the same Path message.
>- I think Label Set supplements both Generalized Label
>   Request and Suggested Label.
>
>This (and the previous point) would give
>
>  <Path Message> ::=  <Common Header> [ <INTEGRITY> ]
>                      <SESSION> <RSVP_HOP>
>                      <TIME_VALUES>
>                      [ <EXPLICIT ROUTE> ]
>                      <GENERALIZED LABEL_REQUEST> | <SUGGESTED LABEL>
>                      [ <LABEL SET> ]
>                      [ <UPSTREAM LABEL> ]
>                      [ <SESSION_ATTRIBUTE> ]
>                      [ <POLICY_DATA> ... ]
>                      <sender descriptor>
>
>Regards,
>Adrian
>--
>Adrian Farrel  mailto:af@datcon.co.uk
>Network Convergence Group
>Data Connection Ltd., Chester, UK
>http://www.datcon.co.uk/
>Tel: +44 (0) 1244 313440  Fax: +44 (0) 1244 312422