On 07/30/2013 11:08 AM, Jonathan Hardwick wrote:
Cyril and I had an offline conversation about these comments. This
email is to document the discussion for the benefit of the mailing
list. See *[JEH-MC]* comments below.
We have one question for the WG, as follows. If anyone has an opinion
on this, please could you provide it to the mailing list?
---
*[JEH-MC]*Jon believes that this draft should relax the restriction of
RFC 5440 that the BANDWIDTH object is mandatory, in the case where a
GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH is supplied instead. This would mean changing
existing procedures, the initial mechanism was not to change RFC5440
object presence rule. Cyril is fine with the proposal from Jonathan,
but we would like to get WG and implementers feedback.
Jon, Cyril, all
In this case, I would go back to one of my initial suggestions: do not
add GENERALIZED_BANDWIDTH and add a TLV to the BW objects, which can be
ignored.
In other words, the creation of GEN_BW was justified due to: a) do not
touch rfc5440 b) if RFC5440 does not state that BW object can have TLVs,
then they can't and it is fixed length.
My personal preference always was to add a TLV or a new object type for
BW. If we allow ourselves a liberal interpretation of rfc5440 then
let's assume we can add a tlv...
Just my opinion, of course, and not a particularly strong one
Ramon
--
Ramon Casellas, Ph.D. -- Senior Research Associate -- Networks Division
Optical Networks and Systems Department -- http://wikiona.cttc.es
CTTC - Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia (PMT) - Edifici B4
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 - 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) - Spain
Tel.: +34 93 645 29 00 ext 2168-- Fax. +34 93 645 29 01
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
