The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2006-Jul> msg00066



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

[mpls] Use of reserved bits in Session object

  • From: "Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:02:34 -0400
  • Thread-Index: Acal+c/Ftwt3w2nnQ7m1l+hsE7EZawGEw9rA
  • Thread-Topic: [mpls] Use of reserved bits in Session object
  • X-IronPort-AV: i="4.07,163,1151899200"; d="scan'208"; a="59973258:sNHT72253026"
  • X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by cell.onecall.net id k6KFGCH02499

Hi Folks,

Just to further bring this to people's attention - RFC 3209 says that
the
bits in this subfield of the Session object "MUST be set to zero",
rather 
than simply saying that the subfield is "Reserved".

Not being familiar with how this text originated, I'd like to understand
if this was done for a specific reason (e.g., to maintain some kind of
compatibility with RFC 2205) or whether it was stated that way ("MUST be
set 
to zero" vs. "Reserved") with nothing further implied.

Thanks,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:57 PM
To: mpls@lists.ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Use of reserved bits in Session object

Hi,

Just a heads up that draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-00.txt makes
use of the reserved bits in the Session object in order to convey a Call
ID.

We believe that this does not cause a backward compatiblity problem
since the bits were formerly reserved.

Note that RFC3209 says that these bits MUST be set to zero on
transmission.

Any questions or opinions would be welcomed.

Adrian and Dimitri 



_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls