RE: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-00.txt

["Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>]

Hi Lou,

Thanks for the clarification, thought maybe there was
some ulterior motive since it is the only subfield given
that label (as opposed to "Reserved").  

Still think a separate object would be cleaner, though.

Cheers,

Lyndon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:15 AM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: Adrian Farrel; Ong, Lyndon; Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-00.txt

At 01:50 PM 6/20/2006, Ong, Lyndon wrote:
>One concern, though, is
>whether there were strong reasons for originally requiring that the 
>field be set to zero.

Lyndon,
         There is a long standing protocol design approach to set unused
fields to zero.  This is done precisely to enable future use of the
field.  IMO (and if my memory holds) this was so well accepted by the
3209 authors it didn't occur to us to enumerate all the implications of
"MUST be zero".  I think we did a bit better in rfc3473, but the change
was only in response to the brain damage that was seen in 3209
interpretations...

Lou