The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] revised P2MP signaling requirement draft after wg last call
Dear MPLS WG, I have updated the P2MP Signaling Requirements draft after WG last call comments. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-03.txt Thank you all who commented or contributed to the off-line discussions. The agreed changes can be seen in the emails exchanged on the MPLS mailing list. The highlight changes are as follows. Section 1 - Remove comment about how TED might be populated. - Add early exposure of discussion of rate of change of leaves. Section 2.2 - Some re-work of definitions - Note PID becomes P2ID Section 4.1 - Clarify different switching types. Section 4.3 - Explain "widely scoped abstract node" - Clarify that policy may prevent the ingress learning the full tree of the LSP Section 4.4 - Clarify optimality versus scalability Section 4.7 - Point out that route recording introduces scaling issues. - Remove reference to RSVP-TE Section 4.12 - Distinguish short-term packet duplication from long-term Section 4.14 - Re-write for clarity Section 4.15 - Remove solution-based hints Section 4.16 - Deleted entire section as out of scope. Section 4.17 [was 4.18] - Simplify and add reference to P2MP-OAM draft Section 4.19 [was 4.20] - Remove reference to CCAMP WG Section 4.22 - Deleted entire section as out of scope. Thank you, Seisho _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|