[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PWE3] ??: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4385 (1743)

To: jiang.xiaowei at zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: [PWE3] ??: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4385 (1743)
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant at cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:06:14 +0100
Authentication-results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=stbryant at cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
Cc: Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s at rad.com>, pwe3 at ietf.org
Delivered-to: pwe3 at core3.amsl.com
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=357; t=1238421977; x=1239285977; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant at cisco.com; z=From:=20Stewart=20Bryant=20<stbryant at cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[PWE3]=20=3D?windows-1252?Q?=3D3F=3D3F= 3D3A_Re=3D3A__=3D5BTechnical_?=3D=0A=20=3D?windows-1252?Q?Er rata_Reported=3D5D_RFC4385_=3D281743=3D29?=3D |Sender:=20; bh=zZiOF7/2YFaGMzmh4CELaKapgwmVE22g6mlXoGEb0Io=; b=tJaKtTVXWwVdwrwMkcq4R/KBgJaNo60lBPuUM5apsitUfi7l3MX4WLd1jf RdIYBzTMzz+T4cLiLyt4RO2RzHgZtsG7pHWO6QYPqkl97QkcNoNzE/GtjhF5 Gg50wDDgXr;
In-reply-to: <OF40FCCA6F.CCA58F08-ON48257587.0019A162-48257587.0019E2A2 at zte.com.cn>
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <OF40FCCA6F.CCA58F08-ON48257587.0019A162-48257587.0019E2A2 at zte.com.cn>
Reply-to: stbryant at cisco.com
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)

jiang.xiaowei at zte.com.cn wrote:

Sir,
For the seq# space gap problem, could just make the seq# 0 beconfigurable for specific implementation so that vendors can interopwith each other?

That will just introduce interoperability problems for the (many)companies that have correctly implemented the existing specs.


Stewart

References:
- [PWE3] 答复: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4385 (1743)
  - From: jiang . xiaowei

Prev by Date: Re: [PWE3] Flow Label in fat-pw
Next by Date: Re: [PWE3] Flow Label in fat-pw
Previous by thread: Re: [PWE3] 答复: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4385 (1743)
Next by thread: Re: [PWE3] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4385 (1743)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread