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

PROTECTION Object in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling

To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: PROTECTION Object in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling
From: "Pandian, Vijay" <Vijay.Pandian@sycamorenet.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:39:08 -0400

Hi,

What is the rationale behind defining a new C-Type ( C-Type = 2, suggested value, TBA by IANA) for the PROTECTION Object in the e2e draft instead of extending C-Type = 1 defined in rfc3473?

Should we consider C-Type = 1 as obsolete?

Regards,

Vijay

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PROTECTION Object in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling
  - From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>

Prev by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-15.txt
Next by Date: Liaison to ITU-T SG15
Previous by thread: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-15.txt
Next by thread: Re: PROTECTION Object in draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread