Re: Questions regarding draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-01

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

hi jeroen - 


first thanks for commenting - reviews are needed -


see in-line:




Jeroen van der Ham <vdham@science.uva.nl>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
19/07/2006 17:12
 
        To:     ccamp@ops.ietf.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        Questions regarding 
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-01


Hello,

I am trying to understand the text in
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-01, but some things are not completely
clear to me, I hope someone can explain them:

- I believe that the draft often uses the term ISCD often where ISC is
meant. If I understand it correctly, different ISCDs can be announced
for a given interface at different times, for example because the
available bandwidth is changing.



[dp] ISC refers to the switching capability, while with the inclusion of 
Max LSP Bw the ISCD describes capacity associated to one or more network 
layers



- At the end of the first paragraph in Section 3.3 it states:

> [...] in carrier's networks that are based on multiple layers,
> switching technologies, or ISCDs.

I think that this statement should not mention ISCDs at all, because it
makes no sense in that context. Especially if you also read the
following statement at the end of the third paragraph in section 4.3:

> The ISCD does not "identify" network layers, it uniquely characterizes
> information associated to one or more network layers.


[dp] will update in the next release


- I find the example in section 4.2.1 to be very briefly explained, it
could do with a better explanation of what is going on.

One improvement would be to state explicitly which three(!) ways are
possible for setting up an PSC LSP across this device:
1) Terminating on interface #b
2) Terminating on interface #a
3) Going through the device towards a neighboring PSC node.


[dp] it is two from the node perspective itself (TDM->PSC) or PSC directly


It would also help to explain that the existance of possibility 1 is the
sole reason that the device is a hybrid device. And that possibility 1
is also the reason why the PSC is advertised on Link2.


[dp] issues are related to the association between switching capabilities 
(due to the node capabilities) the exercise consisting in not 
introducing/precluding a node state but keep link state only; the text 
from previous release has been condensed and the issue becomes difficult 
to parse; will provide more details in the next release



Other minor corrections:
Section 1 mixes the notation of VC-x and VCx
Section 4.2.1 has swtching, where it should switching


[dp] ok


Jeroen.