Re: [PWE3] PW status TLV Problem.

[Luca Martini <lmartini at cisco.com>]

3.5.7. Label Mapping Message


Wei Luo wrote:
[snip]

> > >
> > this actually comes from rfc3036 where the order is specified. the 
> > label must immediately follow the FEC etc.
> > I don't really care where the TLV is , but RFC3036 does.
>
> Could you kindly point me to the text in RFC3036 requiring such an 
> ordering? All I found is that the Label Mapping message was drawn in 
> such a way that FEC TLV happens to be in front of Label TLV.  Given 
> there is TLV type associated with each, I don't see why the order 
> matters.  But that's not the point I am trying to make.
in section "3.5.7. Label Mapping Message" there is a picture indicating 
that the message should look like. This implies that the status TLV 
needs to be in the optional parameter section.

> Since PW Status TLV could be one of the many optional parameters in 
> the Label Mapping Message and the order doesn't seem to be important 
> for the optional parameters, I would suggest not making that as a 
> mandate.
ho, now i understand. ( I think ) you mean put the status tlv after the 
label mapping , but not necessarily immediately after it.

Yes , I will make the change.

Luca

> ---Wei

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3