Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03.txt WG last call

[Thomas Nadeau <tom.nadeau at bt.com>]

On 3/24/09 5:42 PM, "Yaakov Stein" <yaakov_s at rad.com> wrote:

> Carlos
> 
> I am not happy with putting this information in an "MPLS-TP" document,
> especially one which discusses using the VCCV channel
> (or whatever it is being called there) for non-PWs.
> 
> I would have no problem with a simple statement that
> if non-valid channel types are received then the packet should be discarded.

    I thought this was the default behavior, but if it helps interop, it
doesn't hurt anything so we should put it in there.

    --Tom


> 
> Y(J)S
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Pignataro [mailto:cpignata at cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 19:38
> To: Yaakov Stein
> Cc: pwe3 at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd-03.txt WG last call
> 
> Yaakov,
> 
> That issue is larger than the vccv-bfd draft, and needs an update to
> RFC5085 (to be done by the GAL/GACH document according to
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10040.html>), plus
> I think we wouldn't want to duplicate text in this doc that would need
> to be kept in sync.
> 
> However, do you think we should add an Informative pointer to
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-02#section-5> in
> draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd, saying that "the procedures for handling
> unrecognized or unsupported ACH Channel Types are specified in S5 of
> [GACH]"? And if so, where exactly in draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-bfd (since it
> does not appear to be a proper anchor place for such text)? Other
> ideas/text?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- Carlos.
> 
> On 3/24/2009 1:18 PM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
>> Carlos
>> 
>> Yes, I remember now the discussion about the 0 channel type
>> being wrong, and agree that the breakdown is right.
>> 
>> However, there is still the problem of what to do with a 0
>> (or any other undefined value).
>> 
>> Sorry that I missed the previous discussion on this point.
>> 
>> Even if it will be explained in more detail elsewhere,
>> it would be nice to say something to keep the documents self-contained.
>> 
>> Y(J)S
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3