RE: LMP

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bradford, Richard [mailto:rbradfor@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 10:03 PM
> To: Jonathan Lang
> Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; ccamp-wg
> Subject: RE: LMP
> 
> 
> At 11:30 AM 3/1/2002 -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> >Bert,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 2:26 PM
> > > To: ccamp-wg
> > > Subject: LMP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When I look at section 14, then I wonder:
> > >
> > >   LOCAL_CCID:  Class = 1, C-Type = 1, 4 byte CC_id
> > >   REMOTE_CCID: Class = 2, C-Type = 1, 4 byte CC_id
> > >
> > > Why is that not:
> > >
> > >   CCID: Class = 1, LOCAL: C-Type = 1, 4 byte CC_id
> > >   CCID: Class = 1, LOCAL: C-Type = 2, 4 byte CC_id
> >This change is fine with me unless there is objection from others.
> 
> I'll raise an objection. Throughout the draft the Class is 
> being used to define the meaning of the object and C-type its format.
> Local and remote CCIDs are two completely different objects.
> They are as different as remote  and local node-IDs.
> They are not different formats of the same object.
>
Sorry, I had a cut-and-paste error. I meant:
Why is that not:

   CCID: Class = 1, LOCAL:  C-Type = 1, 4 byte CC_id
   CCID: Class = 1, REMOTE: C-Type = 2, 4 byte CC_id

Bert