RE: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt

[<benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com>]

owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org <> wrote:
> Working Group,
> 
> this initiates a two week working group last call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt
> 
> please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling list and/or
> working co-chairs. 

Section 4.3, paragraph 1 states "The two most notable differences are
that a P2MP LSP comprises multiple S2L Sub-LSPs and that, as a result of
this, it may not be possible to represent full state in a single IP
packet and even more likely that it can't fit into a single IP packet."

Which appears to repeat itself.

Section 5.2.4, paragraph 2 states "The ingress LSP may request 'LSP
integrity' by setting bit (TBA) of the Attributes Flags TLV. The bit is
set if LSP integrity is required."

Should the bit that needs setting be defined here (rather than TBA) or
is that down to IANA?

Section 18, paragraph 1 "This section is currently under discussion
between the authors and will be updated in the next revision."

Is this paragraph appropriate?

Ben