[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ieft-ccamp-lmp-wdm-01.txt comments

To: "Oliver Nicolson" <OFN@dataconnection.com>,<afredette@hatterasnetworks.com>,"Calient - Jonathan Lang" <jplang@calient.net>
Subject: Re: draft-ieft-ccamp-lmp-wdm-01.txt comments
From: "Adrian Farrel" <afarrel@movaz.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:24:49 -0500
Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
References: <37701240971DD31193970000F6CCB9F7040B71D7@duke.datcon.co.uk>

> -- Section 2.4.1 defines a LINK GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS object.  For
> consistency with LMP, a corresponding LINK GROUP CHANNEL_STATUS_REQUEST
> object would be useful.

I think the point is that you report the channel group status of all channels
groups on a TE link, or all channels groups on all TE links.
Do you believe there is a need to (request a) report on a single channel group?

Cheers,
Adrian

References:
- draft-ieft-ccamp-lmp-wdm-01.txt comments
  - From: Oliver Nicolson <OFN@dataconnection.com>

Prev by Date: Re: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
Next by Date: RE: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
Previous by thread: draft-ieft-ccamp-lmp-wdm-01.txt comments
Next by thread: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread