The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] BNF for GMPLS path message (was Re: draft-gray-mpls-rsvp-oif-uni-ext)
Thanks Lou, That makes some sense. For <LABEL_REQUEST> should I read <LABEL_REQUEST> | <GENERALIZED_LABEL_REQUEST> or are some of the fields of GLR sufficiently specific to the sender for that object to need to be in the sender descriptor? Is it also right to add <LABEL_SET> to <sender descriptor> ? Adrian >From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] >Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:53 PM > >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 >
|
|