RE: LMP Comments?

[Jonathan Lang <jplang@calient.net>]

Ramesh,
  Thanks for the catching the bad edits.  Further clarifications inline.

-Jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: S Ramesh [mailto:rashanmu@npd.hcltech.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:33 AM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Jonathan Lang; Bala Rajagopalan
> Subject: LMP Comments?
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 1. The ConfigNack Object has the Config object inclusion in the Nack
> message as optional.[<CONFIG>]. This will be mandatory right, since
> there is no error code, when a Nack arrives, for a negotiable Config
> or non-negotiable Config, the Config Object MUST be included and hence
> mandatory.
Correct.  Config object is mandatory in ConfigNack object.

> 
> 2. Some paragraphs of section 13.4.3 still speaks about the error
> code. Hope missed out while editing.
Correct.  Text referring to Error Codes will be removed.

> 
> 3. Already mentioned about similarities with OIF UNI 1.0. There it is
> mentioned CCID == InterfaceID in in-fiber case. This draft also speaks
> about in-fiber case in Section 3. According to this draft,  CCID is a
> 32 bit number and Interface ID can be 32 bit( IPv4 or unnumbered ) or
> 128 bit
> ( IPv6 ).  OIF UNI is mentioning to refer IETF LMP for message
> formats. So how can a 32 bit number be matched with a 128bit number?
> Is this question is meaningful or am i missing something? Since OIF
> UNI is mentioning IETF LMP for message formats am cross posting in
> this list. Kindly clarify me in this regard.
The CCID is defined as a 32-bit number.  For in-fiber control channels where
the interfaces are IPv4 addresses, these could be the same.

> 
> Thanks,
> Ramesh
>