The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2004-May> msg00072



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-soft-preemption-02.txt

  • From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
  • Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
  • Cc: "Matthew R. Meyer" <mmeyer@gblx.net>, George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Matthew Meyer <mrm@gblx.net>, "'mpls@uu.net'" <mpls@UU.NET>

Hi Dimitri,

On Wed, 12 May 2004 Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:

> hi, this doesn't mean that they not have to be correctly documented as
> proposed in point 6 of adrian's mail:

Qu'est ce que tu veux dire?  :-)

> "> 6. We were looking for a solution that
>  >     a. documented more clearly the expected behavior of a 3209-
>  >         conformant implementation

I would support a document that stated ("clarified") in a paragraph
that hard preemption is the de facto standard (BCP) for RSVP-TE.  I
would further support stating that hard preemption is what
implementations of 3473 should do.

Kireeti.
-------