Re: draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-06.txt [P2MP ID]

[George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>]

>          Simply, because that's the way MPLS and GMPLS is specified
> today and works in running code.
> 
> If you want to change something from the way it works today, i.e, in
> RFC3209 and 3473 (and really 2205), IMO it's incumbent on you to
> justify why what's there needs to be changed.  The case has been made
> for why the session object must use a P2MP ID rather than a
> destination IP address.  The case has not been made for changing the
> definition or semantics of Tunnel ID.
> 
> Can provide the justification of why we need to deviate from current
> specs on definition of Tunnel ID?

Absolutely.  We didn't start with a blank piece of paper.  We're
building on existing things.  So the onus for argument, should you
choose to pursue it, is in your court.

...George

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719