Subject: Re: Last calls on Hierarchy, Bundle, and Unnum

From: Nabil Seddigh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:07:43 -0500

I have just had a look at the 03 version of the unnumbered links
draft. Seems like I missed last call so maybe this is too late but...
I have a few suggestions in relation to the draft:

1. It would be nice if a new ERROR_SPEC c-type is defined for 
   unnumbered links. This ERROR_SPEC could indicate the node 
   and interface where an error occured. e.g in the case of 
   admission control failure. In a number of 
   current RSVP implementations for numbered networks, the 
   ip address of the interface where failure occured is inserted
   into the ERROR_SPEC. It would be nice to have similar information
   for in the unnumbered case. One would then know the exact
   link where the failure occured.

2. There is no mention of where the IF_ID RSVP_HOP object is defined
   A reference to section 9.1.1 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt
   would probably be useful. 

3. From previous discussion on this list, it appears that the 
   Interface ID field of the unnumbered ERO subobject is intended
   to represent the incoming interface of the next hop router.
   If this is the case, it should be explicitly stated at
   the beginning of section 6.

   If the intention is to leave it open such that it is either
   incoming or outgoing interface then a bit from the reserved
   field of  the sub-object should indicate which of the two 
   choices is being used.

---
Best,
Nabil Seddigh
[email-masked]

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:18:43 -0800

Nabil,

>    link where the failure occured.

ok.

>    would probably be useful. 

Agreed.

>    field of  the sub-object should indicate which of the two 

The intention is to keep it consistent with numbered interfaces

Yakov.