Subject: Re: last call comments

From: "Kenneth Sundell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:07:16 +0200

folks,
i interpret the silence that we have consensus on option 2, i.e. to use tlv
labels only.

ken

"Sundell, Kenneth" wrote:

> folks,
> is there anyone that objects to option 2 as described below?
>
> ken
>
> > tom worster wrote:

> i see these options:
> >
> > 1) use short form, fixed length for all labels. this is no good since
> > there is a need for variable length labels.
> >
> > 2) use tlv form for all labels. this will work. it is the cleanest
> > solution.
> >
> > 3) use short for atm/fr/mpls and tlv for the rest. this will work.
> >
> > 4) require switch support for both forms. this will also work.
> >
> > 5) allow switch to support either or both. this is broken -- unless
> > we add something like the discovery you mentioned to fix it.
> >
> > so i think we should choose between 2), 3), and 4). i don't much
> > like 4) because it seems nonsensical to require two message formats
> > for the same thing -- which was my original last call comment. but
> > i'm willing to go along with any of these three.
> >
> > c u
> > fsb

--
Kenneth Sundell
Routing Architecture Lab, Nortel Networks Sweden
phone: +46 8 5088-3538, mobile +46 70 665-7838