Re: LMP & neighbor discovery

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Greg,

> Hmm, Jonathan it seems the spec never stops changing.  It seems to have been
> a "one size fits all" as long as its my flavor of PXC.  Am I supposed to
> implement just part of the spec in the case of SONET/SDH? 

Yes.

> How does a carrier specify this?

I am sure carriers can figure this out. After all, LMP is not
the only protocol that has optional parts.

> It seems better if it was broken up in multiple specs or you get very
> specific concerning the technology you are addressing.  It
> doesn't make sense for a technology that already provides fault management 
> and performance monitoring to repeat this functionality.

I certainly agree with the point you made in the last sentence. And
that is why fault management functionality in LMP is optional.

> So you're now telling me that after constantly fighting me to keep "true
> discovery" out of LMP, you've now put it in?  Can you update the
> introduction to the draft to reflect this.  Most of us don't have the time
> to read through the details after the intro portion says it
> doesn't have the functionality we desire.

Are you trying to say that you commented on the text that you didn't
even read ?

Yakov.