On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Jonathan Sadler wrote:
Please consider the following comments on these drafts:
Many of the comments are based on implementation experience. These comments
marked with a (*).
1. In section 4.4.2 of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt, the operations
Packet Switch Capable (PSC) are defined. Reference is made to Minimum LSP
for SDH encoding. None of the examples in section 5 of
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-05.txt show how this field should filled.
Is the suggestion that Min LSP bw be removed for PSC?
2. The mechanism for showing relationships between server and client layers
I've incorporated most of Stephen Shew's text on layer relations
almost as is. Most of the specific comments you have should really
be addressed (IMO) to a document on routing for SONET/SDH (such as
draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-isis[ospf]-00.txt). Please review
the new text, and let us know if there are issues to be addressed by
3. Layer specific attributes are not supported*. Specifically:
- It is not possible to have a link with different costs at
different layers (ex. VC-11, VC-4, VC4-4c).
- Many attributes discussed actually refer to a specific layer*.
- Combining layer specific attributes with layer relationships can
provide a more efficient encoding mechanism than requiring
separate link announcements per layer*.
4. The "TDM" Interface Switching Capability presumably includes
layers other than SONET/SDH, such as PDH* (DS1, DS3, E1, E3) and
G.709. The interaction with these layers needs to be defined.
5. In many cases, 8 levels of priority are not necessary*. A more
compact encoding that has a bitfield stating the priority levels
being announced would reduce the size of the announcement.
Do you have specific text that you think falls under the realm of
the overall functional spec (as opposed to layer-specific docs)?