Subject: Re: spec 10589 question

From: "R.Murali" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:57:04 EDT

>You have not missed anything. The text in the proposed second edition
>draft to which you refer is in error in this section. This has been
>pointed out in the review of the second edition draft which is
>available at
>
>ftp://ftp.juniper.net/pub/isis/isis_review.02.txt
>ftp://ftp.juniper.net/pub/isis/isis_review.02.doc
>
>After examining the above review, if you feel that something has been
>overlooked please let me know.
>
>   Les
>
In this review document, the statement is:
" The text from the first edition Section 8.2.4.2 item d) has been omitted 
from the new text. This item describes what to do if the action is "Accept" 
and the new value for CircuitID in the received IIH PDU is different from 
that in the existing adjacency. ......"

In the above statement, the check is for a different CircuitID in the 
received IIH PDU but in the first edition spec, the check is for a different 
circuit ID status, which is calculated by item c).
Which is correct? because both will give different results depending on the 
system ID.
I think that there is no need of item c). and we should just check whether 
the circuitID in the received IIH PDU is different from the previous 
circuitID and take relevant actions.

Also, the review document also does not talk about any action when the 
neighborSystemID is different from the value of Source ID (item d).

Thanks,
Murali

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

---

From: "Lester Ginsberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:29:28 -0700 (PDT)

> Which is correct? because both will give different results depending on the 

The verbiage in the review document is imprecise. The use of the term
"CircuitID" is more correctly the computed "CircuitID status" which
consists of the concatenation of the system ID and circuit ID. IN this 
instance, the review document was not providing replacement text but
trying to point out the problem with the second edition draft
text. The actual recommendation in the review document is to restore
the text from 8.2.4.2d of the first edition. The language in this
section is more precise. Sorry for any confusion.

(I should say that the review document attempts to be clear where it
proposes replacement text by the use of italics and indentation. This
is not an excuse to be ambiguous in other parts of the review, but I hope will
allow some indulgence on the part of the reader.)

 > circuitID and take relevant actions.

The distinction between "Up" and "Accept" has to do with whether an
adjacency currently exists or not. The requirements differ in these
cases, although there is some overlap. Section "c" discusses what to
do if the action is "Up". The missing section "d" from the first
edition discusses what to do if the action is "accept". The proposed
section "d" (relettered to be "e") discusses the common behaviors
associated with both the Up and Accept actions. I believe all of these 
sections are needed.

 > neighborSystemID is different from the value of Source ID (item d).

I believe that the omitted section 8.2.4.2d from the first edition
covers this case (action Accept). The review document calls for this
text to be restored.

   Les